Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01688/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIGITAL EMPIRE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1688 DMS (KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

COMPAL ELECTRONICS INC

GROUP, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 25, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file under seal

their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Motion for Fees and

Costs as well as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Carlos Espinoza in Support of that

Motion. 

"Courts have long recognized 'a general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Rieckborn v. Velti PLC,

No. 13-cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (quoting

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). However, "[t]his

right is not absolute." Id. Documents related to non-dispositive motions, like the one

at issue here, may be filed under seal if the party filing the docum ents shows "good

cause by making a 'particularized showing' that 'specific prejudice or harm will result'

should the information be disclosed." Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems,

Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2015 WL 604055, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (quoting

- 1 - 14cv1688

Case 3:14-cv-01688-DMS-KSC Document 165 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 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

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006)).

"'Broad allegations of harm , unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated

reasoning' will not suffice." Jones v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No.

13-CV-02390-LHK, 2015 WL 865877, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (quotin g

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

[a] protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determ ination that good cause exists to keep the

documents sealed, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential docum ents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.

Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. Western Digital Corp., No. 5:11-cv-03786-PSG,

2013 WL 6576266, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013). 

Here, Defendants assert that the reason fo r sealing Exhibit 5 is that Plaintiff

designated the document as confidential under the protective order in place in this case.

However, Defendants fail to allege that prejudice or harm, particularized or otherwise,

would result from the disclosure of the E xhibit. Defendants' assertion that the

information contained in Exhibit 5 is confidential does not satisfy the good cause

standard for filing these documents under seal.

For these reasons, the Court denies Def endants' motion for leave to file these

documents under seal. The Clerk of Court shall file the docum ents according to the

regular filing procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2016

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv1688

Case 3:14-cv-01688-DMS-KSC Document 165 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 2