Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01622/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01622-28/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OPENTV, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

APPLE, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-01622-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SEAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 208 

Pending before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s administrative motion to file under 

seal certain documents related to Defendant’s motion to stay. Dkt. No. 208. Brian Platt, Director 

of IP Litigation at Plaintiff OpenTV, Inc.’s parent corporation, filed a declaration in support of 

Defendant’s motion to seal. Dkt. No. 211 (“Platt Decl.”). No opposition to the motion to seal was 

filed, and the time to do so has passed. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives 

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

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

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in 

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record 

related 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.” 

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 212 Filed 09/17/15 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 Californi

a

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations 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 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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 it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. 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 are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive 

motions “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 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause” 

standard requires 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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). 

Because Defendant’s motion to stay is a nondispositive motion, the Court applies the 

“good cause” standard to Defendant’s motion to seal. 

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 212 Filed 09/17/15 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 Californi

a

II. DISCUSSION 

Defendant seeks to seal exhibits 2, 4, and 5 to the declaration of Luann L. Simmons in 

support of Defendant’s reply in support of its motion to stay pending completion of IPR 

proceedings. Dkt. No. 208 at 1. Attached to the Platt declaration are proposed redactions of those 

exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 211-1, 211-2, 211-3. Platt declares that “the redacted portions of these 

exhibits are information relating to [Plaintiff’s] revenues, customers, and certain United States 

sales data,” and that this information “is highly confidential and nonpublic information, disclosure 

of which to the public or competitors would cause [Plaintiff] commercial, competitive, and 

irreparable harm.” Dkt. No. 211 ¶ 8. The Court finds that good cause exists to seal the redacted 

portions of the exhibits to the Platt declaration. See Transperfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint 

Corp., No. 10-cv-02590-CW, 2014 WL 4950082, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (granting 

motion to seal documents containing confidential financial information). Furthermore, the Court 

finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as 

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal the portions of exhibits 2, 4, and 5 to 

the declaration of Luann L. Simmons redacted by Plaintiff in the exhibits to the Platt declaration. 

Within four days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall (1) publicly file redacted versions of 

the exhibits; and (2) separately file under seal the unredacted versions of those exhibits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 17, 2015 

______________________________________ 

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-01622-HSG Document 212 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3