Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-15/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF 

FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 433]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal portions of its fifth amended 

complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 433. For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 

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 & Cty. 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 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 471 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 471 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 4
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

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). “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

Because the sealing motion relates to the filing of an amended complaint, which is more 

than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the 

compelling reasons standard. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the 

declarations submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated 

compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents and the proposed 

redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the 

table below:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

433-8 Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED as 

to all

highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions designated by 

Plaintiff contain technical proprietary 

confidential information as well as 

confidential financial and business 

information of Plaintiff, disclosure of which 

would harm Plaintiff. See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-

7, ECF 433-1. 

As to the highlighted portions designated by 

Defendants as confidential, those portions are 

substantively identical to the paragraphs in 

Plaintiff’s third and fourth amended 

complaints. See ECF 438 at 2. These portions

contain Defendants’ confidential business and 

financial information, disclosure of which 

could harm Defendants. Yaghmour Decl. 

¶¶ 4–6, ECF 348-1.

433-9

433-10

433-11

433-12

433-13

Exhibit C to the 

Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information. See

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.

433-14 Exhibit D to the 

Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information. See 

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 471 Filed 03/04/19 Page 3 of 4
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

433-15

433-16

433-17

433-18

433-19

433-20

433-21

Exhibit H to the 

Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s 

proprietary confidential information. See 

Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing motion at ECF 433 is GRANTED. No 

further action is required as Plaintiff has already publicly filed the redacted versions of the 

documents. See ECF 433-4, 433-5, 433-6, 433-7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 471 Filed 03/04/19 Page 4 of 4