Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02584/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02584-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEGATRON CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 47

In connection with the parties’ briefing on Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for (1) 

Temporary Restraining Order and (2) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction 

(ECF No. 12), the parties filed three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 10, 32, and 35). 

On June 29, 2015, this Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part ECF No. 10, and otherwise denied 

with prejudice ECF Nos. 32 and 35. ECF No. 41. The Court further ordered that “[i]f the parties 

wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the parties must do so within 

seven (7) days.” Id. at 4.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motion to file documents under seal. 

ECF No. 47.

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 48 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

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

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. This Court, and others 

in this district, have applied the “compelling reasons” standard in deciding parties’ requests to seal 

materials submitted in connection with motions for preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. 

Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-630-LHK, 2012 WL 2936432 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); see 

also Wells Fargo and Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., No. 12-CV-3856-PJH, 2013 WL 897914 

(N.D. Cal. March 8, 2013).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, 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.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format 

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 48 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

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

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of 

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

47 47-3 Exhibit A to the Henry

Declaration, Wireless Patent 

License Agreement, previously 

filed at ECF No. 10-2.

GRANTED

47 47-4 Exhibit E to the Henry 

Declaration, English-translated 

version of Pegatron’s February 

3, 2015 Civil Complaint, 

previously filed at ECF No. 10-

6.

GRANTED

47 47-5 Exhibit F to the Henry

Declaration, non-translated 

version of Pegatron’s February 

3, 2015 Civil Complaint, 

previously filed at ECF No. 10-

7.

GRANTED

47 47-6 Exhibit K to the Henry

Declaration, InterDigital’s 

Statement of Claim, previously 

filed at ECF No. 10-12.

GRANTED

47 47-7, 47-8 Exhibit B to the Strandness 

Declaration, final Arbitration 

Award, previously filed at ECF 

No. 10-17.

GRANTED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015 ________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 48 Filed 07/07/15 Page 3 of 3