Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01716/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01716-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF 

ORDER RE: THE PARTIES’ 

RESPECTIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

EXHIBITS TO JOINT PRETRIAL 

STATEMENT

[Re: ECF 383, 384]

Before the Court are two sealing motions: (1) Defendants’ administrative motion to file 

under seal portions of two exhibits to the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement; and (2) Plaintiffs’ 

administrative motion to file under seal the password to a USB drive containing documents related 

to the Joint Pretrial Statement. See ECF 383, 384. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ 

motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice and Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“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. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 405 Filed 03/28/19 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

Parties moving to seal documents must also 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).” 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). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support thereof. Defendants seek to seal certain descriptions/names of 

exhibits and objection responses in Plaintiffs’ trial exhibit list and Defendants’ trial exhibit list. 

See Defendants’ Motion at 2, ECF 383; see also ASUS Exhibit List, ECF 383-3; InterDigital 

Exhibit List, ECF 383-5. Defendants’ request to seal is not narrowly tailored—Defendants seek to 

seal the entire descriptions or names of numerous exhibits and objection responses. Upon initial 

review, the Court is not convinced that any portion of any of the descriptions/names of exhibits or 

objection responses is sealable. However, the Court will permit Defendants to renew the sealing 

request with narrowly tailored redactions if Defendants so choose. 

Meanwhile, Plaintiffs seek to seal the password to a USB drive containing manually 

lodged expert reports, deposition designations, and discovery from both parties. The Court finds 

that Plaintiffs have articulated compelling reasons to seal the password, and that the proposed 

redaction is narrowly tailored. 

The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below.

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 405 Filed 03/28/19 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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

383-3 Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 

List

DENIED without 

prejudice. 

The proposed redactions are not 

narrowly tailored.

383-5 Defendants’ Trial 

Exhibit List

DENIED without 

prejudice. 

The proposed redactions are not 

narrowly tailored. 

384-4 Exhibit A to Lee Decl. GRANTED. This document contains the 

password to an encrypted USB 

drive that contains confidential 

information, including the parties’ 

license terms and financial data. 

See Plaintiffs’ Motion at 1, ECF 

384; Lee Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 384-1. 

Disclosure of the confidential 

information would cause 

competitive harm to the parties. 

Lee Decl. ¶ 2. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Defendants’

motion to seal at ECF 383 and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF 384. 

For any document that has been denied sealing without prejudice, the designating party 

may renew its request for sealing by submitting more narrowly tailored redactions and supporting 

declaration(s). Any renewed request must be filed on or before April 5, 2019. If no renewed 

request is filed by that date, the sealing request will be denied with prejudice. 

No further action is necessary with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01716-BLF Document 405 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3