Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01716/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01716-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, 

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 191]

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to 

Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain 

exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.

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 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 1 of 6
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) requiresthe 

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 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 2 of 6
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 Defendants’ First Amended Answer and 

Counterclaims, 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 the declarations 

submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of sealing. Yen Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal 

(“Yen Decl.”), ECF 191-1; Lin Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal (“Lin Decl.”), ECF 192. The Court 

finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the portions sought to be sealed. 

The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court’s rulings on the 

sealing motion are set forth in the table below:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

191-2 Exhibit A to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Defendants’ Motion to 

Amend Scheduling 

Order and for Leave to 

File First Amended 

Counterclaims

(“Motion to Amend”))

GRANTED as 

to yellow 

highlighted 

portions.

The proposed redactions at 1:25-27; 2:3-27; 

3:1-28; 4:4-5; 4:8-9; 4:11-22; 4:24-5:2; 5:4-

10; 5:12-24; 8:10-16; 9:2; 9:11-13; and 

10:17-22 contain information related to 

highly confidential patent license 

agreements of Plaintiffs, Defendants, and 

third-party Quanta, disclosure of which 

could cause substantial economic harm to 

Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 3–

4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.

191-4 Exhibit C to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Defendants’ File First 

Amended 

Counterclaims)

GRANTED as 

to yellow 

highlighted 

portions.

The proposed redactions at 22:21-24; 24:1-2; 

24:12-26:2; 26:4-27; 27:1-12; 27:16-28:4; 

28:8-12; 29:23-25; 29:27; and 30:1-17

contain information related to highly 

confidential patent license agreements of 

Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third-party 

Quanta, disclosure of which could cause 

substantial economic harm to Plaintiffs, 

Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. 

¶¶ 2, 5.

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 3 of 6
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

191-6 Exhibit E to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 2 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the 

deposition transcript of Vincent Hong, an 

ASUS employee. The exhibit contains 

confidential terms of the patent license 

agreement between the parties as well as 

information on a confidential royalty 

negotiation with a third party, disclosure of 

which could cause competitive harm to 

Plaintiffs, Quanta, and the third party. 

Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 5. 

191-7 Exhibit F to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 3 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains information on 

confidential patent license agreements 

between Defendants and third party Quanta, 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to Defendants and 

Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.

191-8 Exhibit G to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 4 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains information on 

confidential patent license agreements 

between Defendants and third party Quanta, 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to Defendants and 

Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.

191-9 Exhibit H to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 5 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the 

deposition transcript of Vivian Yeh, an 

ASUS employee. The exhibit contains 

confidential business negotiations between 

the parties and confidential communication 

between Plaintiffs and Quant regarding

royalty payments, disclosure of which could 

cause competitive harm to Plaintiffs and 

Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 6.

191-10 Exhibit I to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 6 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains communication

between employees of third party Quanta

and Plaintiffs regarding confidential royalty 

payments, disclosure of which could cause 

competitive harm to Plaintiffs and Quanta. 

Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 7.

191-11 Exhibit J to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 7 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit includes confidential 

business negotiations between the parties 

regarding their patent license agreement, 

disclosure of which could cause competitive 

harm to Plaintiffs and Defendants. Mot. 3; 

Lin Decl. ¶ 8.

191-12 Exhibit K to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 8 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit consists of a letter from 

Defendants’ general counsel to Vivian Yeh, 

an employee of Plaintiffs. The letter 

contains information related to confidential 

business negotiations between the parties, 

disclosure of which would lead to the 

violation of the parties’ patent license 

agreement and cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin 

Decl. ¶ 9.

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 4 of 6
5

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

191-13 Exhibit L to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 9 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit includes an email 

communication between the parties. The 

contained information relates to confidential 

business negotiations between the parties 

regarding their royalty pay arrangement, 

disclosure of which would lead to violation 

of the parties’ patent license agreement and 

cause harm. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 10.

191-14 Exhibit M to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 10 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information related to Plaintiffs and third 

party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to 

Defendants, disclosure of which would cause 

substantial economic harm to Defendants and 

Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶ 15.

191-15 Exhibit N to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 11 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information related to Plaintiffs and third 

party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to 

Defendants, disclosure of which would 

cause substantial economic harm to 

Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. 

¶ 16.

191-16 Exhibit O to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 12 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email 

communication between Plaintiffs, 

Defendants, and third party Quanta 

regarding confidential royalty payments, 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to the parties and Quanta.

Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 11.

191-17 Exhibit P to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 13 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information related to Plaintiffs and third 

party Quanta’s royalty reports submitted to 

Defendants, disclosure of which would 

cause substantial economic harm to 

Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. 

¶ 17.

191-18 Exhibit Q to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 14 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the 

deposition transcript of Louise Thai, an 

ASUS employee. The exhibit contains 

confidential business communication 

between Plaintiffs and Quanta regarding 

royalty payments, disclosure of which could 

cause competitive harm to the parties and 

Quanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.

191-19 Exhibit R to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 15 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email 

communication between Plaintiffs and 

Quanta regarding confidential royalty 

payments, disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to the parties and Quanta. 

Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

191-20 Exhibit S to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 16 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The exhibit includes an email 

communication between Plaintiffs, 

Defendants, and third party Quanta 

regarding confidential royalty payments, 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to the parties and Quanta. 

Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 13.

191-21 Exhibit T to the Sealing 

Declaration

(Ex. 20 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit is an excerpt of the 

testimony of Ranae McElvaine, an 

Interdigital employee. The exhibit contains 

information relating to Defendants’

confidential patent licensing agreement with 

Quanta, disclosure of which could cause 

substantial economic harm to Defendants 

and Quanta. Mot. 5; Yen Decl. ¶ 22.

191-22 Exhibit U to the 

Sealing Declaration

(Ex. 21 to Yen Decl. in 

Supp. of Motion to 

Amend)

GRANTED. The exhibit contains a highly sensitive 

communication between Defendants and 

third party Quanta. The communication 

relates to confidential financial information 

regarding Defendants’ patent licensing 

arrangement with Quanta, disclosure of 

which could cause substantial economic 

harm to Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 5; 

Yen Decl. ¶ 23.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ sealing motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 193 Filed 04/26/18 Page 6 of 6