Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00193/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 7

On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress”) filed an ex 

parte application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (“TRO 

Application”). ECF No. 8. On the same day, Cypress filed an administrative motion to seal 

certain exhibits filed in support of Cypress’s TRO Application. ECF No. 7. Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), Cypress’s sealing motion is supported by a declaration from Michael R. 

Headley. ECF No. 7-1 (“Headley Decl.”). 

For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Cypress’s

administrative motion to file under seal.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Case 5:20-cv-00193-LHK Document 38 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

Northern District of California

“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. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Within the Ninth Circuit, documents that are more than “tangentially related . . . to the underlying 

cause of action” are not sealable unless the Court agrees that “compelling reasons” exist to 

overcome the presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Here, Defendants wish to seal judicial records related to a TRO Application, which is a 

more than “tangentially related” to the cause of action. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Defendants must therefore overcome the presumption of public access by offering “compelling 

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

public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he 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.

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties 

requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5, including that rule’s requirement that 

the request must “establish . . . that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable 

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing 

request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

II. DISCUSSION

Here, although the Court agrees that some of the information Cypress seeks to seal is in 

fact sealable, the Court finds that Cypress’s request is entirely overbroad. For example, Cypress 

Case 5:20-cv-00193-LHK Document 38 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

Northern District of California

seeks to seal specific pricing information with regard to its expected cost of recreating equipment 

at issue in this case. See ECF No. 7-4 (“Croll Decl.”) at 4. “[P]ricing terms, royalty rates, and 

guaranteed minimum payment terms” may be sealable business information. In re Elec. Arts, Inc. 

298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). Cypress’s request to seal this exhibit is narrowly tailored, 

and thus the Court GRANTS Cypress’s request to seal as to this exhibit. 

On the other hand, Cypress also seeks to seal other contractual terms, which it argues 

“could be used by customers in negotiations with Cypress.” Headley Decl. at 1–3. Courts in this 

Circuit have agreed that certain contract terms may be sealable. W. Air Charter, Inc. v. Sojitz 

Corp., No. CV 18-7361 JGB (KSX), 2019 WL 4509304, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2019). Courts 

reason that information putting the movant “at a disadvantage in future negotiations” with existing 

and future customers is sealable because it could harm the movant’s competitive standing. See, 

e.g., Icon-IP Pty Ltd., No. 12-CV-03844-JST, 2015 WL 984121, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2015). 

However, that a contract contains certain confidential terms does not itself justify sealing 

of the entire contract, in light of Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires that the sealing request 

be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Thus, requests to seal entire 

contracts are frequently overbroad and fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) where the 

requested sealing includes boilerplate terms and conditions contained within these documents, as 

well as the parties’ definition of terms, none of which can reasonably be said to reveal any 

confidential information. See, e.g., Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corp., 2014 WL 12606653, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014) (“[E]ven though the Court recognizes that portions of these 

agreements are likely sealable, the Court is not persuaded that each agreement is sealable in its 

entirety, as each appears to contain boilerplate contract language.”). 

As a result, the Court finds that much of Cypress’s request is entirely overbroad because it 

covers information that could not possibly implicate Cypress’s future negotiating position. For 

example, in Exhibit L to the Croll Declaration, Cypress seeks to seal the parties’ definition of 

“process” technology. Croll Decl., Ex. L at 5. Cypress’s assertion that this term from an 

assignment agreement, which merely defines a contract term, “could be of value to parties 

Case 5:20-cv-00193-LHK Document 38 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

Northern District of California

negotiating with Cypress in the future” is conclusory and is thus DENIED without prejudice. See 

Headley Decl. at 1. 

For other exhibits pertaining to Cypress’s contractual relationships, Cypress has failed to 

provide compelling reasons to seal information such as term definitions within contracts and other 

generic, boilerplate language. “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any 

further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Similarly, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to 

competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair 

advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 12–CV–003305–LHK, 2012 

WL 6202719, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012)). Accordingly, as to the remaining exhibits, 

Cypress’s administrative motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, Cypress should narrowly tailor any sealing request to 

only seek sealing of information that is sealable under this Circuit’s case law. Relatedly, in any 

supporting declaration, Cypress should provide specific facts, rather than conclusory assertions, as 

needed to support a claim of potential competitive harm. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 

Any renewed motion to seal this material must be filed by March 6, 2020. 

In sum, the Court rules on Cypress’s sealing motion as follows:

Document Portion(s) to Seal Disposition

Croll Declaration Cost information on page 4, 

line 4 GRANTED

Ex. L to the Croll

Declaration Page 5 DENIED withoutprejudice

Exhibit 1 to Cypress’s Application 

for Ex Parte Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction

Entire exhibit DENIED without 

prejudice

Ex. C to the 

Croll Declaration Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Ex. H to the 

Croll Declaration Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Ex. I to the 

Croll Declaration Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Case 5:20-cv-00193-LHK Document 38 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 20-CV-00193-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

Northern District of California

Document Portion(s) to Seal Disposition

Ex. J to the 

Croll Declaration Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Ex. K to the 

Croll Declaration Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Exhibit A to Proposed Temporary 

Restraining Order (“TRO”) Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

Exhibit B to Proposed Temporary

Restraining Order (“TRO”) Entire exhibit DENIED without prejudice

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2020

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-00193-LHK Document 38 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 5