Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03227/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03227-19/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SILICON LABORATORIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRESTA TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 191, 193, 195, 200)

Before the court are four administrative motions to seal.1 “Historically, courts have 

recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records 

relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4bear 

the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 191, 193, 195, 200.

2 Kamakana v. City & County 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)).

3

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

4 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).

5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 211 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 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

Northern District of California

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially 

related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7 

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” 

standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective 

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the 

parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must 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 

 

6

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

7 Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has 

less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those 

documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).

8 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

9

Id.

10 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

11 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

12 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

13 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party 

to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or 

portions thereof, are sealable.”).

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 211 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 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

Northern District of California

is “sealable,” or “privileged or 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, 

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “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.”15

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows: 

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

191 Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Testimony of 

Douglas Holberg

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

191 Exhibit B to Sobieski 

Declaration (Asset 

Purchase Agreement)

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

191 Exhibit C to Sobieski 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Tuttle Deposition)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

191 Exhibit D to Sobieski 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Holberg Deposition)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

191 Exhibit E to Sobieski 

Declaration (Holberg

Expert Report)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

 

14 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).

15 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 211 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 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

Northern District of California

193 Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike Testimony of Paul 

Benoit

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

193 Exhibit B to Sobieski 

Declaration (Asset 

Purchase Agreement)

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

193 Exhibit C to Sobieski 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Tuttle Deposition)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193 Exhibit D to Sobieski 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Holberg Deposition)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193 Exhibit E to Sobieski 

Declaration (Email Chain 

and XC5000 Evaluation 

Attachment)

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

193 Exhibit F to Sobieski 

Declaration (Internal 

CrestaTech Email and 

Attachment)

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

193 Exhibit G to Sobieski 

Declaration (Benoit Expert 

Report)

Designations highlighted in 

black at Docket No. 197-3 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

193 Exhibit I to Sobieski 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Benoit Deposition)

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

193 Exhibit J to Sobieski 

Declaration (Email and 

Revised Exhibits to Benoit 

Report)

Designations highlighted in 

black at Docket No. 197-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 211 Filed 03/04/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 14-cv-03227-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 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

Northern District of California

193 Exhibit K to Sobieski 

Declaration (Email and 

409A Report)

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

193 Exhibit L to Sobieski 

Declaration (Allocation 

Summary)

SEALED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

195 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 

Expert Testimony

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

195 Exhibit D to Collier 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Lewis Deposition)

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

195 Exhibit F to Collier 

Declaration (Excerpts from 

Murgulescu Deposition)

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

200 Defendant’s Letter to the 

Court Requesting 

Settlement Conference

UNSEALED Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03227-JCS Document 211 Filed 03/04/16 Page 5 of 5