Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03112/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03112-5/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-03112-PSG

ORDER RE: 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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADAPTIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

ASUSTEK., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-03112-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

(Re: Docket No. 111) 

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal four documents. “Historically, courts 

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

judicial records and documents.’”1

 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 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.3

 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 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)). 

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

3 Id. at 1178-79. 

Case 5:14-cv-03112-PSG Document 119 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-03112-PSG

ORDER RE: 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

For the Northern District of California

their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.5 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).6 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8

 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order 

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good 

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 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.11

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 

 

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

5 See id. at 1180. 

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

7 Id.

8 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). 

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

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

11 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 5:14-cv-03112-PSG Document 119 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:14-cv-03112-PSG Document 119 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 3