Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02584/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02584-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PEGATRON CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 32, 35

Before the Court are three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 10, 32, and 35) which 

were filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary Restraining Order 

and (2) Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12), Defendant’s 

Opposition thereto (ECF No. 33), and Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 36).

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 41 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

overcoming the presumption with “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. 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. This Court, and others 

in this district, have applied the “compelling reasons” standard in deciding parties’ requests to seal 

materials submitted in connection with motions for preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. 

Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-630-LHK, 2012 WL 2936432 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); see 

also Wells Fargo and Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., No. 12-CV-3856-PJH, 2013 WL 897914

(N.D. Cal. March 8, 2013).

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, 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.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format 

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of 

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

10 10-2 Exhibit A to the Strandness 

Declaration, Wireless Patent 

License Agreement.

DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 41 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

10 10-3 Exhibit B to the Strandness 

Declaration, InterDigital’s 

Petition for Order Confirming 

Arbitration Award.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

as to the proposed redactions at 

2:22-23 and 3:20-24 because 

the material is not sealable;

otherwise GRANTED.

10 10-6 Exhibit E to the Strandness 

Declaration, English-translated 

version of Pegatron’s February 

3, 2015 Civil Complaint.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

10 10-7 Exhibit F to the Strandness 

Declaration, non-translated 

version of Pegatron’s February 

3, 2015 Civil Complaint.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

10 10-8 Exhibit G to the Strandness 

Declaration, letter from M. 

MacNichol to L. Chao.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the document is not 

sealable.

10 10-9 Exhibit H to the Strandness 

Declaration, letter from D. 

Huang to M. MacNichol.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the document is not 

sealable.

10 10-10 Exhibit I to the Strandness 

Declaration, letter from C. Henry 

to L. Chao.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the document is not 

sealable.

10 10-11 Exhibit J to the Strandness 

Declaration, letter from D. 

Huang to C. Henry.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the document is not 

sealable.

10 10-12 Exhibit K to the Strandness 

Declaration, InterDigital’s 

Statement of Claim.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

10 10-13 Exhibit L to the Strandness 

Declaration, Henry Declaration.

GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions to paragraphs 7, 10, 

and 15; otherwise DENIED 

WITH PREJUDICE because 

the material is not sealable.

10 10-15 Exhibit N to the Strandness 

Declaration, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint.

GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions at 1:14-15, 1:18-20, 

and 4:23-26; otherwise 

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable.

10 10-17 Exhibit P to the Strandness 

Declaration, final Arbitration 

Award.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

10 10-18 Exhibit Q to the Strandness 

Declaration, InterDigital’s 

Memorandum ISO Ex Parte

Application.

GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions at 1:19-20, 1:22-24, 

4:2-3, 5:12-15, 5:27, and 6:1-5; 

otherwise DENIED WITH 

PREJUDICE because the 

material is not sealable.

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 41 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 15-CV-02584-LHK 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

32 32-4 Pegatron’s Opposition to 

InterDigital’s Ex Parte

Application.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable.

32 32-6 Declaration of L. Chao. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable.

32 32-8 Declaration of H. Huang. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable.

35 35-3 Exhibit A to Yoo Declaration, 

Declaration of J. Schultz.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable. 

35 35-5 Exhibit C to Yoo Declaration, 

InterDigital’s Reply ISO Ex 

Parte Application.

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material is not 

sealable.

If the parties wish to file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order, the 

parties must do so within seven (7) days. For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting 

party must file an unredacted version of the document within seven (7) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015 _______________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02584-LHK Document 41 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 4