Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01010/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01010-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

1

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION, 

Case No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 

TO SEAL 

[DKT. NOS. 101, 120, 128, 147 IN 

CASE NO. 17-CV-108 AND DKT. 

NO. 118 IN CASE NO. 17-CV1010]

Before the Court are various motions to seal portions of the parties’ motions to 

dismiss and related pleadings and exhibits in Case No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD, ECF 

Nos. 101, 120, 128, 147, and a motion to seal Qualcomm’s Answer filed in Case No. 

3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD, ECF No. 182. No oppositions have been filed. Upon review 

of the moving papers, the information to be sealed, the applicable law, and for the 

following reasons, the Court GRANTS each of the motions in their entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the 

common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

Case 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD Document 145 Filed 11/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access may be denied to protect sensitive 

confidential information. Courts are more likely to protect information covered by Rule 

26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but are not limited by items listed in 

protective orders. See KL Group v. Case, Kay, & Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir. 

1987) (letter to client from attorney); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365-67 

(D. Nev. 1993) (confidential settlement agreement). 

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong 

presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for 

sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. 

Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high 

threshold requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a 

sealing. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-80. However, for non-dispositive motions, the 

parties must show a lesser “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180. The “compelling 

reasons” test requires showing more than just “good cause.” Id. Documents filed under 

seal will be limited to only those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect 

such sensitive information. 

Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive motions such that the 

compelling reasons standard applies. See BT Collective v. IP Holdings, LLC, 2011 WL 

5873388, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing In re PPA Products Liability Litigation, 

460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“Motions to dismiss are typically treated as 

dispositve.”) Courts also apply the “compelling reasons” standard to motions to seal an 

answer and counter-claim. See Delfino Green & Green v. Workers Compansation 

Case 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD Document 145 Filed 11/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Solutions, LLC, 2015 WL 4235356, at *2 (N.D. Cal, July 13, 2015); Robert Half Int’l v. 

Ainsworth, 2015 WL 4394805, *3 n.2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2015). 

Accordingly, and especially considering the public’s interest in being able to 

access civil actions filed in the courts, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” 

standard to the parties’ requests to seal briefing involving motions to dismiss and 

Qualcomm’s answer. 

Compelling reasons for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Trade secrets 

“may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used 

in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain advantage over 

competitions who do not know or use it.” Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b. 

Because trade secrets concern proprietary and sensitive business information not

available to the public, sealing may be warranted where disclosure would harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

The Ninth Circuit has explicitly recognized that compelling reasons exist for the 

sealing of “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of 

license agreements. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Courts in this circuit have also recognized that information subject to confidentiality 

agreements may also meet the “compelling reasons” standard when accompanied by a 

particularized factual showing. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 331 F.3d 

1122, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2003). 

DISCUSSION

The overwhelming majority of information that the parties seek to seal fall into one 

of two categories: (1) confidential business information, including trade secrets, and (2) 

information subject to confidentiality agreements. For the reasons that follow the Court 

Case 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD Document 145 Filed 11/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

concludes that the parties have demonstrated that compelling reasons exist for sealing the

information subsumed by these two categories. 

First, the Court is satisfied that compelling reasons exist to seal the unredacted 

portions of the pleadings and briefing that concern licensing terms, royalties paid or owed 

under license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, 

and business strategies, along with those exhibits that contain the various confidential 

business agreements executed among the parties. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 

at 569. Each of the parties has narrowly tailored their request to only redact the portions

of the filings and the precise exhibits that implicate such confidential business 

information. Each of the parties has also articulated that the information they seek to seal 

is not available to the public and that the disclosure of such information would harm their 

competitive standing by releasing such information to competitors in the 

telecommunications market. Each of the parties has, moreover, submitted declarations 

providing the Court with a factual basis for their claims of competitive harm. 

Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis to justify 

concluding that compelling reasons exist for sealing such information and exhibits. 

Second, the Court is also satisfied that compelling reasons exist to seal the 

unredacted portions of the pleadings and briefing that are subject to confidentiality 

provisions. The parties have demonstrated that information subject to confidentiality and 

non-disclosure provisions should also be sealed because those provisions likewise 

prevent competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy. 

Such insight could harm the parties in future negotiations with existing customers, thirdparties, and other entities with whom they do business. The parties have, moreover, 

submitted declarations from various company officers that provide the Court with a 

factual basis for their claims that disclosing information subject to confidentiality 

agreements would harm the parties’ respective competition standings. As such, the Court 

is similarly satisfied that the narrowly tailored requests of the parties, and the factual 

findings submitted in support thereof, satisfy the compelling reasons standard. 

Case 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD Document 145 Filed 11/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In sum, the Court finds that the parties’ various requests to seal have been narrowly 

tailored such that they do not impede upon the public’s ability to understand the nature of 

the proceedings and the factual basis for the parties’ claims. As such and in the light of 

the aforementioned compelling reasons justifying sealing, the Court GRANTS each of 

the motions to seal identified by the following table in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 8, 2017

ECF No. Movant Document to be Sealed

3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD

101 Qualcomm Unredacted portions of Qualcomm’s Motion for 

Partial Dismissal of Apple’s First Amended 

Complaint, and Exhibit 2 attached to Hamstra 

Declaration

120 Apple Unredacted portions of Opposition, and Exhibits 

A-F to Sproul Declaration 

128 Qualcomm Unredacted portions of Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial Dismissal of Apple’s First 

Amended Complaint

147 Qualcomm Unredacted portions of Reply in Support of 

Motion for Partial Dismissal of Defendants’ 

(CM’s) Counterclaims

3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD

118 Qualcomm Qualcomm’s Answer and Defenses to 

Defendants’ (CM’s) Counterclaims and Defenses 

Case 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD Document 145 Filed 11/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5