Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-20/pdf.json

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

---

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

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 538

[Re: ECF 538]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal exhibits to Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file motion reconsideration. ECF 538. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s 

motion to seal is 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. 

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 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 551 Filed 06/06/19 Page 1 of 5
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

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 Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 

party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Google, the designating party, has

articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed 

redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set 

forth in the tables below. 

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

538-4 Ex. A to Motion for 

Leave (Motion for 

Reconsideration)

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: 

• 1:13 (remainder of the 

sentence after “Google’s”), 

• 2:13 (after “Loon” and 

before “i.e.”), 

• 3:4-5 (after “Loon” and 

before “one relative”), 

• 3:6-7 (parenthetical 

spanning these lines), 

• 3:8-10 (quotation spanning 

these lines), 

• 3:13 (after “Space Data’s” 

and before “evidence”), 

• 3:15 (after “Space Data’s” 

and before “evidence”), 

• 3:17 (after “that” and before 

“was immaterial”), 

Contains confidential 

information about the design 

and operation of Loon’s 

navigational systems and its 

source code. Bruns

Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 546-1. 

Public disclosure would 

expose Google to 

competitive harm. Id. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 551 Filed 06/06/19 Page 2 of 5
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

• 3:24 (after “upon” and 

before “evidence”), 

• 3:26 (both parentheticals), 

• 4:2-3 (remainder of the 

sentence after “Google’s”), 

• 4:6-7 (entire lines), 

• 4:8 (first four words), 

• 4:10-11 (parenthetical 

spanning these lines), 

• 4:15 (remainder of the 

sentence after “just its”), 

• 4:16 (parenthetical 

following “287-282”), 

• 4:17: (parenthetical 

following “371”), 

• 4:21-25 (entire block quote), 

• 5:6-10 (parenthetical 

spanning these lines), 

• 5:11-12 (sentence spanning 

these lines), and

• 5:25-6:3 (parenthetical 

spanning these lines). 

DENIED as to the remainder. Google, the designating 

party, does not seek to seal 

the remaining identified 

portions. 

538-6 Ex. B to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: Slides 27 & 29

Contains confidential 

information about Loon’s 

technical details. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 546-1. This 

information contains 

references to information

previously sealed by the 

Court. Id. 

538-8 Ex. C to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: Entire document. 

Contains confidential 

information about Loon’s 

technical details. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 546-1. This 

information is the same as

information previously 

sealed by the Court. Id. 

538-10 Ex. D to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: Page 46, lines 3-6. 

Contains confidential 

information about the design 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 551 Filed 06/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

and operation of Loon’s 

navigational systems. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 546-1. This 

information is the same as 

information previously 

sealed by the Court. Id. 

538-12 Ex. E to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: The highlighted 

portions of ¶¶ 4–5; diagram 

above ¶ 301; and ¶ 308 (not 

including footnotes 556 and 

557). 

DENIED as to the remainder. 

Contains confidential 

information about Loon’s 

technical details. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 546-1. This 

information is the same as 

information previously 

sealed by the Court. Id. 

Google, the designating 

party, does not seek to seal 

the remaining identified 

portions. 

538-14 Ex. F to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: All except 

¶¶ 283–286 & ¶ 290. 

Contains confidential 

information about Loon’s 

technical details. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 546-1. This 

information is the same as 

information previously 

sealed by the Court. Id. 

538-16 Ex. G to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

GRANTED as to Google’s 

request: same portions that 

were previously sealed. 

Contains confidential 

information about Loon’s 

technical details. Bruns 

Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 546-1. This 

information is the same as 

information previously 

sealed by the Court. Id. 

538-18 Ex. H to Hosie Decl. to 

Motion for Leave

DENIED. Google, the designating 

party, does not seek to seal 

this document. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 551 Filed 06/06/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal at ECF 538. For any request that has been denied and the properly 

unredacted or lesser redacted document consistent with this order has not been filed, 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. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 551 Filed 06/06/19 Page 5 of 5