Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02543-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL DOCUMENTS

[Re: ECF 176, 178, 181]

Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal, two from Plaintiff Tessera, Inc., 

and one from Defendant Toshiba Corp. See ECF 176, 178, 181. The motions relate to the 

briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, 

the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

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.

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.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 183 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, 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. 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.”).

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).” 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 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 183 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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 sealing motions at issue are resolved under the compelling reasons standard because 

motions for summary judgment are more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. With 

this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

ECF 

No.

Document to 

be Sealed

Result Reasoning

176-3 Toshiba’s 

Reply to 

Tessera’s 

Opposition to 

Toshiba’s 

Motion for 

Summary 

Judgment

DENIED for deposition 

testimony designated as 

confidential for failure to 

provide sufficient reason 

to seal. GRANTED as to 

the remainder.

Contains discussions about and language 

from confidential license agreements 

between the parties, confidential 

communications between Tessera and 

Tessera’s third-party business partners, 

directly quotes or references audit and 

royalty correspondence between the 

parties and deposition testimony that 

Toshiba and/or Tessera has designated as 

confidential, and information the Court 

previously sealed. ECF 51.

176-4 Ex. 1 to Liang 

Declr. 

GRANTED Contains excerpts from the deposition 

transcript of former Tessera employee 

Christopher Pickett that include 

discussion of the parties’ confidential 

negotiation of the Agreement.

178-4 Tessera’s 

Reply in 

Support of 

Motion for 

Partial 

Summary 

Judgment

DENIED for deposition 

testimony designated as 

confidential for failure to 

provide sufficient reason 

to seal. GRANTED as to 

the remainder.

Contains information the Court 

previously sealed (see ECF 51), 

confidential license negotiation 

documents, audit and royalty 

correspondence between the parties, and

deposition testimony the parties have 

designated as confidential under the 

protective order in this case.

178-5 Ex. 1 to Reply GRANTED Contains information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 174.

178-6 Ex. 2 to Reply DENIED Contains excerpts from the deposition 

transcript of Toshiba employee Hiroshi 

Miyauchi that include information about 

Toshiba’s business that Toshiba has 

represented is proprietary. Denied 

because the designating party did not 

provide a supporting declaration.

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 183 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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 California

181-4 Ex. 6 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 51.

181-6 Ex. 11 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.

181-8 Ex. 15 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 51, 170.

181-10 Ex. 16 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains confidential terms and 

conditions of Tessera’s licenses, 

including royalty rates and amounts, 

license fees, buy-down terms, and 

indemnity provisions.

181-12 Ex. 17 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains confidential terms and 

conditions of Tessera’s licenses, 

including royalty rates and amounts, 

license fees, buy-down terms, and 

indemnity provisions.

181-14 Ex. 18 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains confidential terms and 

conditions of Tessera’s licenses, 

including royalty rates and amounts, 

license fees, buy-down terms, and 

indemnity provisions.

181-15 Ex. 19 to 

Glasser Declr.

GRANTED Contains confidential terms and 

conditions of Tessera’s licenses, 

including royalty rates and amounts, 

license fees, buy-down terms, indemnity 

provisions, and information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.

181-18 Ex. 22 to 

Glaser Declr.

GRANTED Contains information the Court 

previously sealed. See ECF 51, 175.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 176, 178, and 181 are GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has 

been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective 

order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or 

lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days 

from the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 183 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4