Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04922/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04922-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

TONY DICKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04922-HSG 

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 117, 121, 123

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal various documents 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 117, 121, and 123.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 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 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 134 Filed 01/17/19 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

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The 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.

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, 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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” 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 also 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) (quotation 

omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than 

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the 

“compelling reasons” standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing 

portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business 

information relating to Defendants’ operations. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 

11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Finjan, Inc. v. 

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 134 Filed 01/17/19 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

Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016); PQ 

Labs, Inc v. Qi, No. C 12-1885-450 CW, 2014 WL 4617216, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014). 

The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as 

containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling reasons to 

grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal. 1 

The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:

Dkt. No.

Public/(Sealed)

Document Portion(s) Sought to be 

Sealed

Ruling (basis)

No Public 

Version 

Filed/(117-6)

Ex. 1, Excerpts from Conte 

Report

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public 

Version 

Filed/(117-7)

Ex. 6, Excerpts from 

Hanssens Report

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

Entire Document 

Sealed/(117-8)

Ex. 9, AMD0000519–29 Entire document GRANTED

Entire Document 

Sealed/(117-9)

Ex. 10, AMD0000692–700 Entire document GRANTED

No Public 

Version

Filed/(117-10)

Ex. 13, Logan Decl. Paragraph 4 GRANTED

Entire Document 

Sealed/(117-11)

Ex. 14, AMD0006454 Entire document GRANTED

No Public 

Version 

Filed/(117-4)

Mot. for Class Certification Page 3, lines 14 through 

20; Page 6, lines 21 

through 22; Page 14, lines 

26 through 28; Page 15 

lines 1 through 5, and line 

22

GRANTED

122/(121-4) Opposition to Mot. for 

Class Certification

Page 11, line 7; Page 24, 

lines 13-14

GRANTED

Entire Document 

Sealed/(123-6)

Ex. 2 AMD0000272–283 Entire document GRANTED

Entire Document 

Sealed/(123-7)

Ex. 5(a) excerpts of 

AMD0006454

Entire document GRANTED

Entire Document 

Sealed/(123-8)

Ex. 5(b) excerpts of 

AMD0006454

Entire document GRANTED

 

1 A number of the parties’ proposed redactions indicate that they are contingent upon a different 

party filing a declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. As evidenced in the 

chart, the Court DENIES the sealing of documents relating to CBI for which no party has provided 

support.

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 134 Filed 01/17/19 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

No Public 

Version 

Filed/(123-4)

Reply in Support of Mot. 

for Class Certification

Page 1, lines 7 through 13 DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

I. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Dkt. No. 121, and GRANTS IN PART 

and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 117 and 123. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public 

versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied and/or for which no 

public version has been filed that reflects only the sealing approved by the court, as indicated in 

the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which 

the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to 

the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/17/2019

Case 4:15-cv-04922-HSG Document 134 Filed 01/17/19 Page 4 of 4