Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00078/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00078-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PARTS OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, 

INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:19-cv-00078-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

PARTS OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Re: Dkt. No. 91 

This order addresses Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file portions of its second 

amended complaint under seal. Dkt. 68. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS 

the motion in part DENIES it in part. 

Courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf 

Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 

WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). The right to access, however, is not absolute. Whitewater W. 

Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). A court may grant a party’s 

motion to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of 

action,” if the moving party presents “compelling reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that 

outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing 

Case 5:19-cv-00078-EJD Document 98 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PARTS OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 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 Californi

a

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

showing, the moving party must provide “specific factual findings that outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 

1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have 

upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed 

product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports and other such 

materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 

App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 

5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 

However, courts should exercise caution not to allow these exceptions to swallow the 

strong presumption in favor of disclosure. “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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling 

standards burden. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential 

under a protective order is not sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(A). 

 Here, there is no objection to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. The designating party is 

Defendant. While Defendant filed a declaration supporting its motion to seal, the Court finds parts 

of the sealing motion unsupported. See Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (noting that broad 

allegations of harm are insufficient to meet the compelling interest standard). 

Case 5:19-cv-00078-EJD Document 98 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 3
Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PARTS OF PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 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 Californi

a

Paragraph 

Sought to be 

Sealed 

Ruling 

¶¶ 235, 239, 

240–44, 246–

47, 249–50, 

252, 255–57, 

260, 264–65, 

268, 270 

GRANTED. This material relates to confidential customer identities and/or 

customers’ trade secrets. According to Defendants, disclosure of this 

information would violate nondisclosure agreements and would disadvantage it 

in future negotiations with current and potential customers. See Johnstech Int’l 

Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, 2016 WL 4091388, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 2, 2016). 

¶ 259 GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART. The phrase “Joint unlawful 

activity by TDK, Taiyo Yuden, and Murata” may not be sealed. Likewise, the 

phrase “By January of 2013, Murata, Taiyo Yuden, and TDK were supplying” 

may not be sealed. This material relates to the Plaintiff’s general allegations 

against the Defendants. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 2019 

WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019). The Court reminds Defendants 

that embarrassment and/or incrimination do not present cause to seal. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The remainder of the information sought to be 

sealed (customer names/products) may be sealed. 

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

motion at ECF 91. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2020 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:19-cv-00078-EJD Document 98 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3