Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00710-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MSHIFT, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIGITAL INSIGHT CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, COMMUNITY TRUST FINANCIAL

CORPORATION, a Louisiana corporation, and

COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, a Louisiana corporation,

MOBILE MONEY VENTURES, LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability corporation, MERITRUST CREDIT

UNION, a Kansas corporation, PROFESSIONAL

FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, an Indiana corporation,

SANFORD INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, a Maine

corporation, FORT WORTH COMMUNITY CREDIT

UNION, a Texas corporation, USE CREDIT UNION, a

California corporation, GATE CITY BANK, A

Minnesota corporation, BUSEY BANK, an Illinois

corporation, DENSION STATE BANK, a Kansas

corporation, FIDELITY BANK, a Massachusetts

corporation, FIRST INTERNET BANK OF INDIANA,

an Indiana corporation, and VISION BANK, a Florida

corporation,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 10-00710 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

The undersigned has reviewed defendants’ administrative motion to file four voluminous

documents under seal and without redaction: (1) their motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of MShift’s patent; (2) the declaration of Michael Potel, Ph.D in support of the

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 125 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

motion; (3) the declaration of Peter Buckner in support of the motion; and (4) the declaration of

Jim Prior in support of the motion.

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED. There is a “strong presumption in

favor of access” to court documents, especially those relating to dispositive motions. To seal

such documents, litigants must present “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records.” See Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

Under this standard, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

overcoming the strong presumption of public access by articulating compelling reasons supported

by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79. Relevant considerations include the “public interest in

understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper

use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 

Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009).

There is no question that the pending summary judgment motion filed by defendants is

dispositive in nature. Instead of providing compelling reasons to support their request, however,

defendants merely cut-and-pasted variations of the following generic statement to justify the

wholesale sealing of each of the above-mentioned documents (Fuehrer Decl. ¶¶ 1–4):

The [document name] contains confidential information relating to

the operation and design of MMV/DI mobile banking solution [sic]

at issue in this action. MMV and DI do not publicly disclose this

information and the public disclosure of this information could

cause harm to MMV and DI as this information would be known

to MMV and DI’s competitors or individuals who may attempt to

gain a competitive advantage over MMV and DI using this

information.

Defendants also stated that the documents contained information that plaintiff MShift designated

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the protective order in this action.

Defendants’ motion falls far short of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard that

applies to dispositive motions. First, the generic statement reproduced above fails to address or

even identify the various types of “confidential information” contained in each document. For

example, one of the exhibits of the Potel Declaration is simply the resume of Dr. Potel. What

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 125 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

compelling reasons exist to file this portion of the document under seal? The same declaration

also contains information about a particular HTML specification taken directly from a publicly

accessible website. If this information is already available to the public, what compelling reasons

justify sealing it? In sum, defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing compelling

reasons why the particular information in these documents should be sealed. 

Second, it is clear that defendants did not attempt to narrow any of their sealing requests. 

They made no attempt to prepare redacted versions of these documents to at least give the public

an idea of this dispute unfolding in their court system. This not only runs afoul of Kamakana, but

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), which states that all sealing requests “must be narrowly tailored to seek

sealing only of sealable material.” Defendants must do better and attempt to separate information

that truly deserves to be filed under seal from information that must be disclosed to the public. 

Third, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), MShift was required to file and serve a declaration

establishing that any of its “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” information included in the

above-mentioned documents is sealable. This was supposed to be filed within seven days of

defendants’ motion. It has now been seven days and no declarations were filed by MShift.

In sum, neither party has provided compelling reasons to seal the above-mentioned

documents. Despite this failure, the parties will be given until NOON ON THURSDAY, JULY 15, to

file supplemental briefs, with appropriate accompanying declarations, setting forth compelling

reasons why any document relating to the dispositive motions, and any portion thereof, should be

filed under seal. The parties are on notice that their sealing requests must be narrowly tailored in

light of the “strong presumption in favor of access” to court documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00710-WHA Document 125 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 3