Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01622/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01622-17/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

OPENTV, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01622-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 156, 164

On April 22, 2015, Defendant Apple, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under seal 

exhibit F to the declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in support of Defendant’s opposition to 

Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc. and Nagravision, S.A.’s motion to supplement Patent Local Rule 3-2(b) 

production (“Exhibit”). Dkt. 156. The Exhibit had been designated as “Highly Confidential -

Attorneys Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective Order in this case. Id. On April 27, 2015, 

Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to partially file the Exhibit under seal, as well as a 

declaration in support of that motion. Dkt. 164. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives 

from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in 

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record 

related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 168 Filed 05/05/15 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

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” 

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, 

‘compelling 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 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact 

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule 

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file 

a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, 

are privileged, 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.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b).

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” 

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause” 

standard requires a “particularized showing” 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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).

Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their Patent Local Rule 3-2(b) production is not 

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 168 Filed 05/05/15 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

dispositive. Therefore, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to Plaintiffs’ request to file the 

Exhibit partially under seal.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs attest that the information contained in the portions of the Exhibit sought to be 

sealed “is confidential and proprietary information belonging to OpenTV, and is a trade secret 

related to OpenTV’s invention management and product development processes.” Fish Decl. ¶ 3. 

As a result, Plaintiffs state that disclosure of the redacted portions of the Exhibit “to the public or 

competitors would or could cause OpenTV commercial and competitive harm.” Id. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown good cause to partially seal the Exhibit by 

identifying the competitive and commercial harm that would result from the disclosure of trade 

secrets contained in the Exhibit. Furthermore, the Court finds that the proposed redaction is 

“narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material. Civ. L.R. 79-5. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore 

GRANTED. Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 156) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 168 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3