Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02885/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-02885-75/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No.12-CV-02885-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

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

GPNE CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC,

Defendant.

Case No.12-CV-02885-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING 

MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 597

Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to seal, ECF No. 597, an exhibit 

submitted in support of Defendant’s bill of costs. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds 

that Defendant has shown good cause to seal portions of an exhibit attached to a nondispositive 

motion and therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal.

“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 

Case 5:12-cv-02885-LHK Document 599 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.12-CV-02885-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

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

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. Dispositive motions 

include “motions for summary judgment.” Id.

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 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) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause” 

standard requires a “particularized showing” 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

Case 5:12-cv-02885-LHK Document 599 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.12-CV-02885-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

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

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing 

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

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 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. R. 79-5(d)(1). “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.” 

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Here, the portions of the documents that Defendant seeks to file under seal are specific line 

items from third-party e-discovery vendor invoices. Defendant has submitted these invoices in 

support of its bill of costs. See Declaration of Christopher O. Green, ECF No. 596-16, Exh. O. As 

this is a nondispositive motion, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to Defendant’s 

request. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court finds that Defendant has made a 

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if certain confidential terms 

of Defendant’s financial relationship with its e-discovery vendor are made public. See Phillips ex 

rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at1210–11. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to 

seal as to the proposed redactions to Exhibit O.

Case 5:12-cv-02885-LHK Document 599 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.12-CV-02885-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

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: July 16, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-02885-LHK Document 599 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 4