Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-01971/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-01971-55/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

DIGITAL REG OF TEXAS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 12-1971 CW

ORDER ON

ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Docket Nos. 783, 

785, 799)

Before the Court are several administrative motions to seal. 

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed under seal 

only if a party establishes that the portions sought to be sealed 

"are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 

entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Any 

sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable 

material. Id. The request must be supported by the designating 

party's declaration establishing that the information is sealable. 

Id. subsection (d).

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In considering a sealing 

request, the Court begins with "a strong presumption of access 

[as] the starting point." Id. The documents sought to be filed 

under seal in this case are related to motions for attorneys' 

Case 4:12-cv-01971-CW Document 809 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

fees, a non-dispositive motion. A party seeking to seal materials 

related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause by making 

a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will 

result" should the information be disclosed. Id. at 1179-80; Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(c). "[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential 

harm" will not suffice. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003). 

The Court now assesses each motion in turn.

Docket No. Ruling

783 Defendant Adobe seeks to file under seal an 

unredacted version of its Motion for Attorneys' Fees 

and Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 to the declaration filed in 

support of its motion. The redacted version of the 

Motion for Attorneys' Fees omits proposed settlement 

values. Exhibit 1 contains excerpts from the 

Deposition of inventor Patrick E. Patterson. 

Exhibit 2 contains excerpts from the Deposition of 

Carl Vernon Venters, Digital Reg's principal. 

Exhibit 4 contains excerpts from the Expert Report 

of Russell Parr relating to Digital Reg's damages.

In support of its motion, Adobe submits a 

declaration from Byron C. Beebe. Mr. Beebe explains

that the materials sought to be filed under seal 

have been designated as "Confidential" or "Highly 

Confidential – Outside Counsel Only" by Plaintiff 

Digital Reg. As the designating party, Digital Reg 

has an obligation under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to 

Case 4:12-cv-01971-CW Document 809 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

file a declaration establishing the designated

material as sealable within four days of the filing 

of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. 

Digital Reg has not filed such a declaration.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 

783). The Court refers Adobe to Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(2) for further instruction. 

785 (as 

amended by 

Docket No. 

793)

Adobe seeks to file under seal an unredacted 

version of its Motion for Attorneys' Fees and 

Exhibit 5 to the declaration filed in support of its 

motion. In addition to the settlement value 

originally redacted in Docket No. 783, this version 

of the Motion for Attorneys' Fees also redacts 

Digital Reg's proposed settlement value. Exhibit 5

(original version of admitted trial exhibit 184) is

a table listing the amount for which Digital Reg 

settled various patent claims.

In support of its motion, Adobe submits a 

declaration from Edward R. Reines. Mr. Reines

explains that the redacted information has been 

designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential

– Outside Counsel Only" by Digital Reg or Symantec; 

however, no party has filed a declaration stating 

why the information is sealable as required by Civil

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED (Docket No. 

785). The Court refers Adobe to Civil Local Rule 

Case 4:12-cv-01971-CW Document 809 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

79-5(e)(2) for further instruction. 

799 Digital Reg seeks to file under seal an 

unredacted version of Digital Reg's Opposition to 

Adobe’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. In support of 

its motion, Digital Reg submits a declaration from 

W. Paul Schuck. Mr. Schuck explains that the 

redacted portions disclose details of Digital Reg's 

patent license terms and royalty rates and Adobe's 

software piracy rates. He argues that public 

disclosure of Digital Reg's patent license terms and 

royalty rates would weaken Digital Reg’s position in 

future license negotiations or in resolving 

litigation. The Court finds good cause to grant the 

motion as to the portions designated confidential by 

Digital Reg. Digital Reg's request is narrowly

tailored and the redactions contain information 

falling within the class of materials that may be 

filed under seal.

With regard to Adobe's software piracy rates, 

Mr. Schuck explains that Adobe has designated this 

information as confidential; however, Adobe has not 

filed a declaration stating why this excerpt is 

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

Accordingly, the motion is denied with respect to 

the information designated as confidential by Adobe.

Thus, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED 

in part (Docket No. 799). The Court refers Adobe to 

Case 4:12-cv-01971-CW Document 809 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) for further instruction. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Adobe's administrative 

motion to seal (Docket No. 783) is DENIED; Adobe's amended 

administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 785) is DENIED; and

Digital Reg's administrative motion to seal (Docket No. 799) is 

DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-01971-CW Document 809 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 5