Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02863-31/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

IPTRONICS INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL 

(Re: Docket No. 541) 

 Defendants seek to file four documents under seal.1 “Historically, courts have recognized a 

‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 

documents.’”2

 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of 

access’ is the starting point.”3

 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive 

 

1 See Docket Nos. 541. 

2 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)). 

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

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 545 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh 

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.4

 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.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.6

 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).7 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8

 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A protective 

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

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 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.12

 

4 Id. at 1178-79. 

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

6 See id. at 1180. 

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

8 Id.

9 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). 

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

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

12 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 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 545 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

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 

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).”13 “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.”14

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

Motion Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

Docket No. 

541-4 

Defendants’ Motion for 

Discovery Sanctions 

UNSEALED. “Lack of preparation” and 

“inability to testify” are not 

narrowly tailored to confidential 

business or trade-secret 

information. 

Docket No. 

541-6 

Exhibit A to the 

Brandwajn Declaration 

UNSEALED. Requests to seal entire swaths of 

a deposition do not show narrow 

tailoring to confidential business 

or trade-secret information.

Docket No. 

541-8 

Exhibit C to the 

Brandwajn Declaration 

UNSEALED. “Lack of preparation” and 

“inability to testify” are not 

narrowly tailored to confidential 

business or trade-secret 

information. 

Docket No. 

541-10 

Exhibit G to the 

Brandwajn Declaration

Highlighted portions 

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information. 

Within seven days, Plaintiffs may file one or more additional declaration that is more 

narrowly tailored. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5, a proposed order must contain a chart specifically 

 

13 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 

“unreadacted 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). 

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

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 545 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

Case No.: 5:10-cv-02863-EJD 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

showing what Plaintiffs seek to seal. An unredacted version must contain highlighting showing the 

court what Plaintiffs seek to seal within that document. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:10-cv-02863-EJD Document 545 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 4