Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07179/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-07179-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

IPSILIUM LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-07179-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 77, 91

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 

of documents in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended infringement 

contentions. The Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal.

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 & Cty. 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 (quotations 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 (quotations

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 

Case 4:17-cv-07179-HSG Document 103 Filed 03/16/20 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

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 (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.

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes 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). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPCMDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

June 30, 2015). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 

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); 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

Because the parties seek to seal portions of their briefs and documents which pertain to a 

nondispositive motion, the Court applies the good cause standard. 

The parties have satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information

Case 4:17-cv-07179-HSG Document 103 Filed 03/16/20 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

contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 

1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 

WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The parties filed supporting declarations representing that 

the identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits contain confidential 

product information, trade secrets, and detailed source code. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 85. 

The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the parties’ 

administrative motions to seal. The parties executed a settlement agreement, and the pending 

motion for leave to file amended infringement contentions was terminated as moot. See Dkt. No. 

100. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 

proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal 

given that the Court will not rule on Plaintiff’s motion. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 

11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest 

in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not 

have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the 

documents divulge proprietary and confidential information unrelated to the public’s 

understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is good cause to 

file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-

HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal 

because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re 

iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 

WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and 

irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit).

//

//

//

//

Case 4:17-cv-07179-HSG Document 103 Filed 03/16/20 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

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/16/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-07179-HSG Document 103 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 4