Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-2/pdf.json

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

X, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

[Re: ECF 74, 78, 81]

Before the Court are Plaintiff Space Data Corporation (“Space Data”)’s motions to file 

under seal portions of its Second Amended Complaint, proposed Third Amended Complaint and 

exhibits thereto. ECF 74, 78, 81. The motion at ECF 81 is a corrected version of the motion at 

ECF 74. The motions are unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS 

Space Data’s motions.

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.

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 85 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 4
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

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 

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) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 85 Filed 05/01/17 Page 2 of 4
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

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 

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 motions relates to Space Data’s complaints, which is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motions are resolved under the compelling 

reasons standard. With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

74-8 Second Amended 

Complaint 

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets, as well as 

confidential financial and business 

information that is competitively sensitive. 

See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF 81-1.

74-9

74-10

74-11

74-12

74-13

Exhibit C to the 

Second Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl. 

¶ 5.

74-14 Exhibit D to the 

Second Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl. 

¶ 6, ECF 81-1.

78-4 Third Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets, as well as 

confidential financial and business 

information that is competitively sensitive. 

See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF 78-1.

78-5

78-6

78-7

78-8

78-9

Exhibit C to the 

Third Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl. 

¶ 5, ECF 78-1..

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 85 Filed 05/01/17 Page 3 of 4
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

78-10 Exhibit D to the 

Third Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical 

proprietary confidential information, including 

Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl. 

¶ 6, ECF 78-1.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 78, 81 are GRANTED. The sealing 

motion at ECF 74 has been corrected by the motion at ECF 81 and thus is TERMINATED as 

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 85 Filed 05/01/17 Page 4 of 4