Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863-60/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP 

(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO SEAL

(Re: Docket No. 814)

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized 

a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 

documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 

of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive 

motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh 

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.

4

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 

 

1

See Docket No. 814.

2 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)).

3

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

4

Id. at 1178-79.

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 830 Filed 12/19/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

their competitive interest.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties 

moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive 

motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8

that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A 

protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 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.12

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 

 

5

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

6

See id. at 1180.

7

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

Id.

9

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).

10 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

11 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

12 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.”).

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 830 Filed 12/19/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

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, 

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “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.”14

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows: 

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

814-4 Avago’s Motion to Strike 

Portions of Lasinski Expert 

Report

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at

2:9-12, 25; 

3:2, 4, 10, 12-13, 20, 23;

4:27

SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

814-5 Ex. 1 to Chang Decl. ISO 

Avago’s Motion to Strike

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at pages 66, 69, 70, 72 of 

Docket No. 827-3

SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

814-6 Ex. 2 to Chang Decl. ISO 

Avago’s Motion to Strike

Designations at

142:12-15;

143:6-8, 15-17, 20-21, 24-25;

144:3-6, 9, 14, 24-25;

145:15-17;

147:7-10;

SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

814-7 Ex. 3 to Chang Decl. ISO 

Avago’s Motion to Strike

UNSEALED. No sealing requested 

by designating party.

 

13 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 redacted version.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).

14 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 830 Filed 12/19/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

814-8 Ex. 4 to Chang Decl. ISO 

Avago’s Motion to Strike

Designations at

95:24;

96:1-3

SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 830 Filed 12/19/15 Page 4 of 4