Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THX, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

APPLE, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 132 

On July 12, 2016, Defendant Apple, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under seal 

documents submitted with its motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions (“Motion for 

Leave”). Dkt. No. 132. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff THX, Ltd. filed a declaration in support of 

Apple’s Motion for Leave (“Riegler Decl.”). Dkt. No. 135. For the reasons articulated below, the 

motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 

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

judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[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). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. 

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

reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 167 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

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 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 

its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 

hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. 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 motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the 

lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. 

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). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Apple seeks to file under seal portions of the following documents: the unredacted version 

of Apple’s Motion for Leave, and Exhibits 1, 3, 24, and 25 to the Declaration of Christine 

Capuyan in Support of Apple’s Motion for Leave (“Capuyan Decl.”). Dkt. No. 132. Apple seeks 

to file the following documents under seal in their entirety: Exhibits 2, 7, 13, 15, and 17-23 to the 

Capuyan Declaration. Id. Apple represents that it “does not maintain a claim of confidentiality to 

any of these documents,” but that THX has designated the material at issue as “Confidential” or 

“Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the operative protective order. Id. Because 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 167 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

a motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions is more than tangentially related to the merits 

of a case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard in evaluating the Motion for Leave. 

A. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 7, and 13 

Apple seeks to seal portions of Exhibit 1 and 3 to the Capuyan Declaration, and seeks to 

seal in full Exhibits 2, 7, and 13 to the Capuyan Declaration. Mot. for Leave. THX represents 

that the aforementioned information “reflects THX’s business strategies and collaborations with 

third parties . . . that are subject to non-disclosure agreements.” Riegler Decl. ¶ 11. Accordingly, 

if made public, the information “would place THX at a significant risk of competitive harm by 

informing competitors and potential business partners of THX about propriety elements of THX’s 

collaboration with these third parties.” Id.

i. Exhibits 1 and 3 

Having reviewed the redacted and unredacted copies of Exhibits 1 and 3 to the Capuyan 

Declaration, the Court finds that the request is narrowly tailored to information that could expose 

THX to competitive harm if disclosed, and GRANTS the request to seal portions of Exhibits 1 and 

3. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts have refused to 

permit their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing.) 

ii. Exhibits 2, 7, and 13 

Exhibits 2, 7, and 13 are copies of THX’s responses and objections to Apple’s 

interrogatories. See Reigler Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10. The Court finds that the request to seal Exhibits 2, 

7, and 13 is not narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable information, as required by Civil 

L.R. 79-5(b). As such, the Court DENIES the request to file under seal Exhibits 2, 7, and 13 to 

the Capuyan Declaration. 

B. Exhibits 15 and 17 

Apple seeks to file under seal in their entirety Exhibits 15 and 17 to the Capuyan 

Declaration. Mot. for Leave. THX asserts that Exhibits 15 and 17 are deposition transcripts of 

THX employees, which reflect THX’s business strategies and collaborations with third parties. 

Reigler Decl. ¶ 14. 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 167 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

The Court finds that the request to file Exhibits 15 and 17 under seal is not narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing of only sealable information, as required by Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The Court 

DENIES the request to file under seal Exhibits 15 and 17 to the Capuyan Declaration. 

C. Exhibits 18 and 19 

Apple requests to seal in full Exhibits 18 and 19 to the Capuyan Declaration, which are 

emails between THX and third party customer, Ford Motor Company. Mot. for Leave; Reigler 

Decl. ¶ 17. THX contends that the emails and attachments are subject to a non-disclosure 

agreement and would expose THX and Ford Motor Company to competitive harm. Reigler Decl. 

¶ 17. 

Having reviewed the redacted and unredacted copies of Exhibits 18 and 19 to the Capuyan 

Declaration, the Court finds that the request is narrowly tailored to information that could expose 

THX or Ford to competitive harm if disclosed, and GRANTS the request seal Exhibits 18 and 19. 

See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

D. Exhibits 20, 21, 22, and 23 

Apple seeks to seal Exhibits 20, 21, 22, and 23 to the Capuyan Declaration in their 

entirety. Mot. for Leave. THX represents that Exhibits 20 through 23 are copies of pages from 

the technical notebooks of a THX employee and a THX consultant, which detail the development 

of THX products and technology. Reigler Decl. ¶ 18. 

The Court finds that the request is narrowly tailored to information that could expose THX 

to competitive harm if disclosed, and GRANTS the request seal Exhibits 20, 21, 22, and 23. See 

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

E. Exhibits 24 and 25 

Apple requests to file under seal Exhibits 24 and 25 to the Capuyan Declaration. Mot. for 

Leave. THX asserts that Exhibits 24 and 25 do not appear to contain sealable information. 

Riegler Decl. ¶ 19. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to file Exhibits 24 and 25 under seal. 

F. Apple’s Motion For Leave 

Finally, Apple seeks to file under seal portions of the unredacted Motion for Leave. Mot. 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 167 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

for

line

Mo

and

Co

com

inc

III

Ap

Mo

ver

the

of t

TH

the

dec

in t

Da

r Leave. 

As an in

e 8 of the M

otion for Lea

d including p

As to p

urt finds tha

mpetitive ha

cluding page

I. CONC

For the 

pple’s Motion

Pursuan

otion for Lea

rsions of Exh

e documents 

As to E

this Order th

HX’s supplem

e sealing of a

claration, the

the public re

IT IS S

ated: August

nitial matter

Motion for Le

ave to the ex

page 7, line 

age 4, line 1

at the request

arm if disclos

 7, line 8 of 

LUSION 

reasons arti

n for Leave.

nt to Civil L

ave in the pu

hibits 24 and

unless Appl

Exhibits 2, 7,

hat specifies 

mental decla

any alleged c

e Court will 

ecord. 

SO ORDER

t 22, 2016 

r, THX only 

eave contain

xtent that Ap

8 of the Mot

4 through an

t is narrowly

sed, and GR

the Motion 

culated abov

 

ocal Rule 79

ublic record w

d 25 within 7

le files revis

 13, 15, and 

the precise p

aration must 

confidential 

allow Apple

RED. 

5

asserts that p

sealable info

ple seeks to 

tion for Leav

nd including

y tailored to 

RANTS the re

for Leave. 

ve, the Court

9-5(f)(3), Ap

within 7 day

7 days of thi

ed versions.

17, THX m

portions of t

be narrowly

information

e to file unre

___

HA

Un

page 4, line 

formation. A

seal materia

ve. 

g page 7, line

information

equest to sea

rt GRANTS 

pple may file

ys of this Ord

is Order. Th

may file a sup

the exhibits t

y tailored and

n. If THX fa

edacted versi

__________

AYWOOD S

nited States D

14 through 

Accordingly,

al outside of

e 8 of the M

n that could e

al page 4, lin

IN PART an

e a revised re

der. Apple m

he Court will

pplemental d

that contain 

d articulate c

ails to file a s

ions of Exhi

___________

S. GILLIAM

District Judg

and includin

, the Court D

f page 4, line

otion for Le

expose THX

ne 14 throug

nd DENIES 

edacted vers

may also file

l be unable t

declaration w

sealable inf

compelling r

supplementa

ibits 2, 7, 13

__________

M, JR. 

ge 

ng page 7, 

DENIES the 

e 14 through 

ave, the 

X to 

gh and 

IN PART 

sion of its 

e unredacted

to consider 

within 7 days

formation. 

reasons for 

al 

, 15, and 17 

________ 

d

s

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 167 Filed 08/22/16 Page 5 of 5