Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00761/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00761-5/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

CORELOGIC, INC.,

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 109, 113) 

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal several documents. “Historically, 

courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a 

‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial 

records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with 

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure.3

 

1 Kamakana v. City & County 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)).

2 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

3 Id. at 1178-79. 

Case 3:14-cv-00761-SK Document 122 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the 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.”4

 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.5

 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).6 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9

 A protective order 

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good 

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 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.11

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 

 

4 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

5 See id. at 1180. 

6 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

7 Id.

8 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). 

9 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

10 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 

11 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.”). 

Case 3:14-cv-00761-SK Document 122 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

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).”12 “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.”13

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows: 

Motion 

to Seal 

Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation 

109 Boundary Solutions’ 

Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion for Leave to File 

Its Amended Counterclaim

Designations highlighted in 

black at Docket No. 109-3 

SEALED EXCEPT page 2, 

lines 2, 14 and 28 UNSEALED. 

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.14

109 Exhibit 1 to the Wecker 

Declaration

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

109 Exhibit 4 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information. 

109 Exhibit 5 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109 Exhibit 6 to the Wecker 

Declaration

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

 

12 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 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).

13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

14 In the future, the parties shall comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D): “[t]he unredacted version 

must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been 

omitted from the redacted version.” 

Case 3:14-cv-00761-SK Document 122 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

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

For the Northern District of California

109 Exhibit 7 to the Wecker 

Declaration

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

109 Exhibit 8 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. Publicly filed at 

Docket No. 110-4. 

109 Exhibit 9 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109 Exhibit 10 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information. 

109 Exhibit 11 to the Wecker 

Declaration

UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information. 

109 Declaration of Dennis 

Klein

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109 Exhibit 1 to the Klein 

Declaration

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109 Exhibit 4 to the Klein 

Declaration

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109 Exhibit 5 to the Klein 

Declaration 

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

113 CoreLogic’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Leave to Amend Its 

Answer to Plaintiff 

Boundary Solutions’ 

Second Amended 

Complaint 

UNSEALED. No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Case 3:14-cv-00761-SK Document 122 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:14-cv-00761-SK Document 122 Filed 06/17/15 Page 5 of 5