Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01161-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 201, 209, 216

Pending before the Court are three administrative motions to file under seal related to a 

motion to supplement the claim construction record (“Motion to Supplement”) brought by Slot 

Speaker Technologies, Inc. (“SST”). Dkt. Nos. 201, 209, 216. 

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, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 

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

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the moving party 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.” Id. at 1178-79 

(citations, internal 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 

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 233 Filed 12/28/16 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 California

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 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. (citations, brackets, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

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

to file 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 . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a 

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

1097. 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

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

II. DISCUSSION

Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the Motion to 

Supplement has more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. The Court rules as 

follows:

Motion Document Ruling Reason

201 Motion to Supplement GRANTED as to pp. 1:15; 

2:10-12; 2:15; 2:19; 2:21; 

3:1; 3:9; 3:13-19; 3:22; 

3:28; 4:1-11; 4:19; 4:27; 

5:7; 5:17-18; 5:26.1

Confidential business 

information.

 

1

The Court grants the motion to seal these lines as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of 

Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-2.

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 233 Filed 12/28/16 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 California

DENIED as to remainder. Not supported by 

declaration.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. A GRANTED. Confidential business 

information.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. B GRANTED. Confidential business 

information.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. E GRANTED as to pp. 8-

11.2

Confidential business 

information.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. H1

DENIED. Not supported by 

declaration.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. H3

DENIED. Not supported by 

declaration.

201 Mot. to Supplement, Ex. J GRANTED as to pp. 8-

11.3

Confidential business 

information.

209 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration 

of Christine C. Capuyan in 

Support of Apple’s 

Opposition to Mot. to 

Supplement 

GRANTED. Confidential business 

information.

216 Reply in Support of Mot. to 

Supplement DENIED. No declaration in support submitted.

III. CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), SST must file the necessary revised redacted 

versions of the documents listed in the chart above within 7 days. 

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from 

this Order, SST must also file unredacted versions of (i) Exhibits H-1 and H-3 to the Motion to 

Supplement and (ii) the Reply in Support of the Motion to Supplement. 

The Court will be unable to consider the documents unless SST files revised versions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2016

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

2

The Court grants the motion to seal these pages as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of 

Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-3.

3

The Court grants the motion to seal these pages as submitted by Apple with the Declaration of 

Christine Capuyan. Dkt. No. 207-4.

Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 233 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 3