Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02425/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02425-0/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BAYSAND INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02425-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 19]

Before the Court is defendant Toshiba Corporation’s Administrative Motion to File Under 

Seal portions of its brief and two exhibits filed in support of its recent Motion to Dismiss or Stay. 

Admin. Mot., ECF 19. Defendant avers that it seeks to seal (1) portions of a Technology License 

Agreement between it and plaintiff Baysand Inc.; (2) portions of a Request for Arbitration that 

Plaintiff filed before the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”); and (3) portions of 

Defendant’s motion briefing that reference those exhibits. Id. at 2. Although Defendant believes 

that these documents can be filed with minimal redaction, it appears that Plaintiff believes 

otherwise. Id. at 2-5. Indeed, Plaintiff has since filed a five-page response to Defendant’s 

administrative motion in support of its own request for more extensive sealing of Defendant’s 

papers. See Pl.’s Response, ECF 21.

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption 

in favor of access” to judicial records “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)). Judicial records to dispositive motions are treated 

differently from records attached to non-dispositive ones. Id. at 1180. A party seeking to seal 

judicial records attached to non-dispositive motions need only show “good cause” under Federal 

Case 5:15-cv-02425-BLF Document 26 Filed 07/22/15 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 California

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to seal such records. Id. A party seeking to seal records in 

connection with a dispositive motion, however, bears a higher burden of articulating “compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. In this District, parties seeking to seal 

judicial records must furthermore follow Civil L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing 

request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b)

(emphasis added). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated 

confidential by another party, the burden of articulating good cause or compelling reasons for 

sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

Here, Defendant seeks to seal portions of its briefing and supporting exhibits in connection 

with a motion to dismiss or stay this action in favor of arbitration. Courts differ on whether an 

analogous motion to compel arbitration (which may lead to dismissal of the case) is dispositive or 

non-dispositive. See Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 12-06030 SI, 2013 WL 5441973, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) (collecting cases). The Court need not determine which standard 

is applicable to Defendant’s sealing motion here because neither party has complied with the local 

rules regarding sealing. 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) requires that a party seeking to seal judicial records submit: 

“A declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are 

sealable. 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.” Both parties have submitted argument in support of or against sealing, and neither party 

has submitted a declaration in support of sealing. The local rules place the burden of submitting 

such a declaration on the proponent of sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). Here, although both 

Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to the Technology License Agreement attached to Defendant’s 

motion, the parties disagree as to the scope of the sealable material. Furthermore, while it is 

unclear what confidentiality agreement governs the Request for Arbitration attached to 

Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff also appears to be the driving force behind Defendant’s request to 

seal that document. As such, Plaintiff, as the proponent of more extensive sealing, should bear the 

Case 5:15-cv-02425-BLF Document 26 Filed 07/22/15 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 California

burden of proposing narrowly tailored redactions and submitting a declaration establishing that the 

portions sought to be redacted are appropriately sealable. Plaintiff has thus far failed to do so but 

shall be afforded another opportunity to support its request to seal portions of Defendant’s motion 

and supporting documents.

By no later than July 29, 2015, Plaintiff shall submit a declaration establishing that the 

specific portions of Defendant’s motion and supporting exhibits that Plaintiff seeks to redact are 

sealable. Plaintiff shall moreover submit a revised proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to 

seal only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof 

that is sought to be sealed.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02425-BLF Document 26 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3