Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-06635/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-06635-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

1 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CREAGRI, INC., a California corporation,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PINNACLIFE INC., a Nevada corporation, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 5:11-CV-06635-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL 

 

 Pending before the Court are several Administrative Motions to Seal filed by the parties in 

connection with the Motion to Disqualify Dr. Visioli, the cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, 

and Daubert Motions. See ECF No. 79, 87, 92, 103, 106, 113, 118, 121, 125, 138, 142, 143, 145, 

151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 170. This Court, having considered the motions, accompanying 

declarations, and relevant law, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions.1 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

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

documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 

(1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in 

 

1

 Pending before the Court is also a Motion to Remove ECF No. 157, because ECF No. 157 was 

inadvertently filed publicly. See ECF No. 163. The documents were re-filed under seal at ECF No. 

158. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Remove ECF No. 157. 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 1 of 9
2 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

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, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must 

articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . 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). When ruling on a motion to seal court records, a “court must 

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 

certain judicial records secret.” Id. The Federal Circuit has held that the public’s interest is 

diminished where the documents that are subject to a motion to seal have not been considered by a 

court or a jury. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In 

such circumstances, the “public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings” would not be 

diminished by sealing the information. Id. at 1226-28. 

The Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial 

records . . . [that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a nondispositive motion.” In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686 F.3d 

1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). In such situations, the party seeking to seal need only demonstrate that there is 

“good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to seal. Motions to seal materials related 

to non-dispositive motions warrant this more lenient standard, in part, because such motions “are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Pintos v. Pac. 

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 9
3 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

II. DISCUSSION 

The parties to the instant litigation filed a number of administrative motions to seal along 

with the Motion to Disqualify Dr. Visioli and the cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. At the 

hearing on the Motion to Disqualify, the Court told the parties that the sealing requests were too 

broad and should be narrowed, and the Court asked the parties to meet and confer. The parties did 

so and submitted more narrow sealing requests. These narrowed sealing requests, see ECF Nos. 

156-61, supersede the parties’ earlier, broader sealing requests, see ECF Nos. 79, 92, 103,2 106, 

113, 118, 121, 125. Thus, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the parties’ earlier, broader sealing 

requests. ECF Nos. 79, 92, 103, 106, 113, 118, 121, 125. Accordingly, the Court addresses the 

merits of only the narrower sealing requests below. 

Accompanying the parties’ narrower sealing requests were declarations from counsel. See 

e.g., ECF Nos. 130, 156-1. These declarations, particularly those of CreAgri, relied on broad, 

general statements regarding the designation of material as “Confidential” or “Highly 

Confidential” under the protective order and offered little to no basis for why the specific 

information merited sealing. For example, CreAgri provides one conclusory statement that fifteen 

exhibits, totaling more than 75 pages are sealable because they “concern CreAgri’s confidential 

business and technical information regarding its business, competition, and products.” ECF No. 

156-1 at 4. 

Despite such broad declarations, where the parties have met the standards for sealing, the 

Court below grants the sealing requests. Where the parties clearly cannot meet the standards, 

because, for example, information sought to be sealed was already publicly disclosed, the Court 

denies with prejudice the sealing requests. Where the parties may be able to meet the standards for 

sealing, but have not yet done so, the Court denies the sealing requests without prejudice. With 

 

2

 The Court notes that on Pinnaclife’s initial Administrative Motion to File Under Seal its Motion 

for Summary Judgment, a user can see under the redactions by copying and pasting from the pdf 

into a word processor. See ECF No. 103-1. The Court encourages the parties to review all of their 

redacted documents to determine whether this is the case with respect to other documents and to 

move to remove any such documents. In this order, the Court does not deny any sealing motions on 

the basis that information sought to be sealed is effectively publicly available due to improper 

redacting. 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 3 of 9
4 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

respect to this last category, the Court will consider sealing requests that are either more narrowly 

tailored or are supported by declarations addressing why the specific information sought to be 

sealed meets the relevant sealing standards. 

ECF No. Document Title3 Ruling and Rationale

87 Opposition to Motion to 

Disqualify Dr. Visioli 

DENIED. The redacted information relates to general 

terms of the consultation agreement between Dr. Visioli 

and CreAgri. This information is critical to 

understanding the Motion to Disqualify. Accordingly, 

the public interest is high. Further, the terms of the 

agreement were discussed on the record in open court 

extensively by counsel for both parties during the 

October 31, 2013, hearing on the Motion to Disqualify. 

The only additional information sought to be sealed are 

broad and vague statements regarding Dr. Visioli’s 

work for a CreAgri partner. CreAgri has not offered any 

specific argument or basis for why this information is 

sealable, and the CreAgri partner has not separately 

sought to keep this information sealed. Accordingly, the 

Court cannot find that “good cause” supports the 

sealing request. 

138 Pinnaclife’s Surreply in 

Opposition to CreAgri’s 

Motion to Disqualify Dr. 

Visioli 

DENIED. The sealing requests here relates to items in 

the 10-B meeting minutes. Specifically, most of the 

redacted material is specific ingredients to add to 

HIDROX that were discussed during these meetings. 

However, at the hearing on the Motion to Disqualify, 

CreAgri’s counsel stated almost all of these additional 

ingredients on the record in open court. Furthermore, 

the declaration in support of the sealing request, ECF 

No. 139, provides no reasons why CreAgri regards 

these ingredients as highly sensitive or what harm could 

result from their disclosure. Because the information 

was already publicly disclosed and because CreAgri 

does not persuasively contend that there are reasons to 

redact the information, the Court finds no “good cause” 

to seal the identified information. 

142 Pinnaclife’s Motion to 

Exclude Testimony of 

Jeffrey Redman 

GRANTED. The Court did not rule on the underlying 

motion, but rather, denied it as moot in the summary 

judgment order. Public access to the records cited in 

this motion will not further the public’s understanding 

of the reasoning underlying the Court’s decisions. See 

Apple, Inc., 727 F.3d 1214 at 1226 (sealing warranted 

when there was no “indication that th[e] information 

was essential to the district court’s rulings”); id. at 1228

(information not relied on by district court in its orders 

“is irrelevant to the public’s understanding of the 

judicial proceedings”); see also Valley Broad. Co. v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 

(9th Cir. 1986) (presumption of public access to judicial 

records grounded in need to promote “the public’s 

 

3

 Many of the motions contain accompanying declarations. 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 4 of 9
5 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant 

public events”). Given that the public’s interest in 

accessing the documents at issue in a motion on which 

the Court did not rule on the merits is low and that there 

is some interest on the part of the parties in maintaining 

the confidentiality of the technology and business 

practices discussed, the Court finds that there is “good 

cause” to seal the document. 

143 Pinnaclife’s Motion to 

Exclude Testimony of 

Jeffrey Redman 

GRANTED. This appears to contain the same 

information as ECF No. 142. 

145 Declaration in Support of 

CreAgri’s Motion to 

Preclude Testimony of Dr. 

Visioli 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The unredacted

version of this declaration is publically accessible. If the 

parties move to remove this document, they may refile a 

new administrative motion to seal, which the Court will 

consider. 

151 Pinnaclife’s Revised Motion 

to Exclude Testimony of 

Jeffrey Redman 

GRANTED. The ruling on ECF No. 142 is equally 

applicable here. 

156-60 Documents associated with 

Motion to Disqualify Dr. 

Visioli and CreAgri’s 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Infringement) 

GRANTED as to all the documents related to CreAgri’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Infringement). See 

Exs. K-R. The Court did not rule on this underlying 

motion on the merits. Instead, the Court dismissed this 

this underlying motion without prejudice because the 

Court granted Pinnaclife’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Invalidity. See ECF No. 177. Accordingly, 

the Court’s rationale with respect to ECF No. 142 is 

applicable here. 

Exhibit A: DENIED. The ruling on ECF No. 87 is 

equally applicable here. 

Exhibit C: DENIED. The ruling on ECF No. 87 is 

equally applicable here. 

Exhibit E: 

 Page 1, Lines 19-22; Page 2, Lines 3-4, 11-12, 

19-20, Page 4, Lines 12-15: DENIED. This 

material relates to the consultation agreement 

and the broad terms of CreAgri’s agreement 

with a partner. “Good cause” does not support 

sealing these for the reasons stated in this 

Court’s order on ECF No. 87. 

 Page 2, Line 25 to Page 3, Line 2: DENIED. 

“Good cause” does not support sealing this 

broad answer to a deposition question, in which 

Dr. Visioli merely conceded that he had 

conversations with Dr. Crea that he considered 

confidential. 

 Page 4, Lines 1-2: DENIED. “Good cause” does 

not support sealing the broad statement by Dr. 

Visioli that he and Dr. Crea discussed potential 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 5 of 9
6 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

distributors for CreAgri’s products.

 Page 4, Lines 3-5: DENIED. “Good cause” does 

not support sealing broad statements about what 

Dr. Crea thought his patents covered. 

 Page 4, Lines 22-26: DENIED. These broad and 

vague statements regarding the nature of Dr. 

Visioli’s conversations with Dr. Crea are not 

sealable. 

 Page 5, Lines 1-5: DENIED. The discussion 

about Dr. Visioli’s relationship with 10-B was 

stated in open court by CreAgri’s counsel at the 

hearing on the Motion to Disqualify. 

 Page 5, Lines 14-18: GRANTED as to the word 

preceding “delivery” on Line 16. How CreAgri 

planned to deliver HIDROX is potentially a 

trade secret. The remaining information is not 

sealable. Accordingly, the remainder of the 

sealing motion is DENIED. 

 Page 5, Lines 19-22: DENIED. “Good cause” 

does not support sealing broad, general 

statements about communications between Dr. 

Visioli and Dr. Crea. 

Exhibit G: 

 Declaration of Dr. Crea: GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part. The mere fact that Dr. Visioli 

had conversations with Dr. Crea is not a trade 

secret. See ¶ 2. Nor are broad, vague statements 

about the nature of Dr. Visioli’s work for 

CreAgri, which was discussed at length at the 

hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Dr. Visioli. 

See ¶ 4. The existence, dates, and general topics 

of conversation of the 10-B International 

meeting minutes were also discussed in open 

court during the hearing on the Motion to 

Disqualify Dr. Visioli. See ¶¶ 5-8. The title and 

contents of this PowerPoint presentation are not 

sealable, because nothing in the record supports 

a finding that the presentation itself was 

confidential. See ¶ 15; see also ECF No. 179 at 

11-12. The fact that Dr. Crea sent Dr. Visioli an 

email and the email’s subject line is not 

confidential and thus the motion to seal this 

information is DENIED. See ¶ 18. However, the 

Court finds that “good cause” supports the 

sealing of the contents of the email that concern 

the specific nature of the discussions between 

CreAgri and its partners regarding the 

development of new products. See ¶ 17. Thus, 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 6 of 9
7 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

the Court GRANTS the motion to seal the 

contents of the email. 

 Exhibits 1, 12-17: DENIED. There is no “good 

cause” to seal these routine emails scheduling 

and inquiring about meetings. 

 Exhibits 2-4: DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. CreAgri seeks to seal in full the 

minutes of 10-B International’s meetings that 

Dr. Visioli and Dr. Crea attended. However, 

substantial portions of these meeting minutes 

were discussed in open court. These disclosed 

items are discussed in the Court’s Order 

Denying the Motion to Disqualify Dr. Visioli, 

ECF No. 179. The Court further finds that 

statements such as when the meetings were 

adjourned are not sealable. Furthermore, as 

discussed above, the declarations in support of 

sealing this information, ECF Nos. 92-1, 156-1, 

conclusorily state that the material is sealable 

without explaining why the information 

contained in the minutes is confidential. In light 

of these deficiencies, the Court denies the 

motion to seal these exhibits, but does so 

without prejudice. The Court will consider a 

more narrowly tailored sealing request that 

redacts no information already made public and 

that is accompanied by a declaration that 

provides more detail about why the material 

contained in these exhibits is sealable. 

 Exhibits 5-6: DENIED. There is no “good 

cause” to seal this email celebrating the 

acceptance of a paper for publication, as the 

parties have offered only a broad, conclusory 

statement for why this information is 

confidential. This paper was in fact published. 

 Exhibits 8-11: DENIED. There is no “good 

cause” to seal this email exchange attaching a 

PowerPoint presentation created by a party with 

whom the parties and record indicate there is no 

non-disclosure agreement. See ECF No. 179 at 

11-12. 

Exhibit I: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 

redactions, 15 pages out of a 20-page excerpt from Dr. 

Visioli’s deposition, are overbroad. For example, 

objections to questions and identification of exhibits are 

redacted. Furthermore, Dr. Visioli’s statement that he 

did not feel like his relationship with Dr. Crea ended on 

bad terms is redacted. 

161 Documents associated with 

Pinnaclife’s Motion for 

GRANTED as to all the documents related to CreAgri’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Infringement). See 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 7 of 9
8 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

Summary Judgment 

(Invalidity) and CreAgri’s 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Infringement). 

Exs. K-R. The Court did not rule on this underlying 

motion on the merits. Instead, the Court dismissed this 

this underlying motion without prejudice because the 

Court granted Pinnaclife’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Invalidity. See ECF No. 177. Accordingly, 

the Court’s rationale with respect to ECF No. 142 is 

applicable here. 

The Court rules as follows with respect to the remaining 

documents, which are related to Pinnaclife’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment: 

Exhibit 2: GRANTED. Exhibit 2 is the unredacted 

version of Pinnaclife’s motion for summary judgment 

of invalidity. Pinnaclife seeks to seal portions of its 

motion relating to invalidity arguments that the Court 

did not reach. Accordingly, the Court’s rationale with 

respect to ECF No. 142 is applicable to these portions. 

Exhibit 4: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 

unredacted version of this declaration is publically 

accessible. See ECF No. 161-3. If the parties move to 

remove the unredacted version of the document, they 

may refile a new administrative motion to seal, which 

the Court will consider. 

Exhibit 11: DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This 

exhibit includes portions of Dr. Crea’s deposition. The 

portions sought to be sealed were filed publicly (and 

likely inadvertently) as part of Exhibit C to the Marshall 

Declaration in Support of Defendant Pinnaclife Inc.’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative 

Summary Adjudication of Claims. Compare ECF No. 

161-3 at 39-40 with Exhibit 11 at 7-8. Accordingly, if 

the parties move to remove the publicly filed document, 

they may refile a new administrative motion to seal, 

which the Court will consider. 

170 CreAgri’s Opposition to 

Pinnaclife’s Motion to 

Exclude Testimony of 

Bruce German 

GRANTED. The ruling on ECF No. 142 is equally 

applicable here. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the pending 

Administrative Motions to Seal. For the sealing requests denied without prejudice, the parties may 

file revised sealing requests within ten days. Failure to do so will result in the denial of these 

motions with prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 8 of 9
9 

11-CV-06635-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 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 

For the Northern District of California 

Dated: January 2, 2014 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-06635-LHK Document 181 Filed 01/02/14 Page 9 of 9