Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02543-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION 

TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 172]

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. renews its motion to file under seal three documents relating to its 

motion for summary judgment. See Mot., ECF 172. Tessera’s motion is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 175 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery 

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents 

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties 

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine 

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference 

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 175 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Tessera’s sealing motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard, because its

motion for summary judgment is more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. 

ECF 

No.

Document to 

be Sealed

Result Reasoning

172-4 Ex. 5 to 

Tessera’s 

motion for 

partial 

summary 

judgment

Pages

85,

86:1-10,

98-101,

110-113,

127-129,

146-150,

152:13-153:25

SEALED.

Pages

82-84, 

86:11-89:25,

126,

151:1-152:12,

162

UNSEALED.

Only sealed material contains 

confidential business information. The 

following unsealed material is not 

confidential business information but 

rather describes routine business 

practices:

 whether Toshiba keeps records of its 

semiconductor manufacturing;

 whether Toshiba maintains 

organizational charts;

 what standard documents Toshiba 

provided to its third-party auditor;

and

 whether Toshiba has employees who 

are knowledgeable about the 

technical specifications of Toshiba’s 

products.

Conversations between counsel 

regarding the length of the deposition

also are not confidential business 

information. 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 175 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

172-6 Ex. 19 to 

Tessera’s 

motion for 

partial 

summary 

judgment

Pages

176:1-178:10,

179:2-15,

182:10-186:3,

246:25-250:13,

260-267,

292-295,

320:1-3

SEALED.

Pages 

179:11-180:1,

179:16-182:9,

186:4-187:18,

244-246,

250:14-251:25,

320:4-25

UNSEALED.

Only sealed material contains 

confidential business information.

The following unsealed material is not 

confidential business information:

 whether Powertech Technology Inc. 

makes packages for Toshiba;

 a general approximation of the 

number of package models Toshiba 

makes;

 the witness’s estimate of the number 

of patents Tessera owns;

 the witness’s proficiency with 

English;

 the witness’s preparation for 

deposition; and

 whether Toshiba received an audit 

report from its third-party auditor

(without discussing the contents or 

import of the report).

Conversations between counsel 

regarding whether the deposition is 

complete also are not confidential 

business information.

172-8 Ex. 28 to 

Tessera’s 

motion for 

partial 

summary 

judgment

Pages

26-33,

56:5-6,

57:4-12,

SEALED.

Pages

1-5,

54-56:4,

56:7-57:3,

57:13-25,

82-86,

98-100

UNSEALED.

Only sealed material contains 

confidential business information. The 

following unsealed material is not 

confidential business information:

 whether the witness negotiated the 

terms of the contract (without 

discussing the terms or contents of 

the contract);

 whether the witness was prepared to 

testify about the contract (without 

discussing the terms or contents of 

the contract);

 whether the witness was testifying 

on Toshiba’s behalf; and

 the witness’s preparation for 

deposition.

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 175 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 175 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 5