Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01647/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01647-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BLUE SPIKE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01647-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal at Docket Number 64 is hereby DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

Two different standards govern motions to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 

1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 605 F.3d 665 

(9th Cir. 2010). For most judicial records, the party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate 

“compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records and 

documents, including judicial records. Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). However, a different standard applies to private documents 

submitted in connection with non-dispositive motions, since such motions are often unrelated or 

only tangentially related to the merits of the underlying claims. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 

The Rule 26(c) “good cause” standard applies to documents submitted in connection with nondispositive motions, such as discovery motions, which the court may seal “to protect a party or 

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Pintos, 565 

F.3d at 1116.

Parties must provide sufficient support for sealing the material at issue. See Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(b) (“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, 

or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 

Case 4:14-cv-01647-YGR Document 68 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

under the law . . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material 

. . . .”); Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) (requiring “[a] declaration establishing that the document 

sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”).

Here, the declaration provided lacks sufficient detail supporting the request. (Dkt. No. 64-

1.) General reference to a “confidentiality agreement between the parties” that neither party has 

“agreed to waive,” with no additional showing of the need for sealing the material at issue, is 

insufficient to justify the request. (Id. ¶ 2.) Moreover, the motion fails to provide a satisfactory 

explanation for the need to seal the third-party communications at issue. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

This Order terminates Docket Number 64. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2015 

______________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-01647-YGR Document 68 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 2