Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00457/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00457-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

Plaintiff,

v.

CMI USA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 

REQUEST TO SEAL TRIAL EXHIBITS 

AND TRANSCRIPTS, AND TO 

REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED 

DOCUMENTS FROM THE DOCKET

Re: ECF No. 239

The parties to this case have moved to file under seal three trial exhibits (numbers 210, 277 

and 370) and certain specified lines of trial transcript (lines 269:6, 861:6, 909:25, 938:8, 947:15, 

948:3, 948:10, 973:1, 981:10, 1010:15, 1010:25, 1011.1, 1035:9, and 1035:20), and to remove 

from the docket Exhibit C to Defendant CMI’s Notice of Lodging of Trial Demonstratives, ECF 

No. 237-3, and attachment 4 to Plaintiff’s Notice of Lodging of Jury Notebook Materials and 

Plaintiff’s Trial Demonstratives, ECF No. 238-5. ECF No. 239. Asetek has filed declarations in

support of sealing. ECF Nos. 239-2, 239-3. The Court will grant the stipulated request.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations 

omitted).

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 

(1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 240 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a 

party seeks to seal materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be 

overcome only if the party presents “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 (internal citation omitted). 

On the other hand, when a party seeks to seal materials in connection with a nondispositive motion, the party need only make a “particularized showing under the good cause 

standard of Rule 26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to 

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 

2374 (2012).

II. DISCUSSION

The parties have not identified which standard applies to this motion to seal, but under 

even the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard, the parties have met their burden to 

show that the documents they identified may be filed under seal and/or removed from the docket.

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The Nixon court 

also noted that the “common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to 

insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business information that might harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing.” 435 U.S. at 598. The Federal Circuit has similarly concluded 

that under Ninth Circuit law, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information 

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 240 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

and internal reports are appropriately sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard where that 

information could be used to the company’s competitive disadvantage. Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Here, the parties have submitted declarations explaining that the information they seek to 

seal is confidential business information that has not otherwise been made available to the public 

and that, if disclosed, would cause Asetek “commercial, competitive, and irreparable harm.” The 

Court has viewed the documents and redacted information and finds that the parties have met their 

burden to show that the requested information and documents should be sealed. 

The Court also finds that the parties have narrowly tailored their request by seeking to seal 

and redacting only the information that is specifically subject to seal. 

III. CONCLUSION

“[T]he document[s] filed under seal will remain under seal and the public will have access 

only to the redacted version, if any, accompanying the motion.” Civil L. R. 79-5(f)(1). In 

addition, the documents at ECF Nos. 237-3 and 238-5 shall be permanently removed from the 

docket and not subject to public disclosure, though the documents’ removal is without prejudice to 

the parties’ right to re-file redacted versions of these documents, as necessary or desired.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 240 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3