Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03704/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03704-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

MITAC DIGITAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03704-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL, 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 64]

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal exhibits A and B to the declaration of Pierre Parent, filed 

in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF 64-4. 

Defendants have not opposed the request. 

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling 

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which 

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal a document 

submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must meet the “compelling reasons” 

standard.

Plaintiff declares that these two documents were produced “Attorney’s Eyes Only”

pursuant to a protective order. Both exhibits are confidential acquisition documents related to 

Plaintiff’s purchase of a third party company; this third party has not given Plaintiff consent to 

publically produce the documents. Rice Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Rice, declares that the 

public filing of these two documents “could subject my client to litigation by the third party” for 

Case 5:13-cv-03704-BLF Document 67 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

violations of the parties’ confidentiality agreement. See Rice Decl. ¶ 3. 

Plaintiff’s declaration, standing alone, is insufficient to seal these two exhibits. In

Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit considered this very issue, and held that “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may . . . expose [a party] to further litigation will not, without more, compel

the court to seal its records.” Kamakana at 1179 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis added). The presumption of public access to 

documents, particularly as here when those documents are filed in opposition to a dispositive 

motion, cannot be outweighed merely because the party producing those documents could face 

suit due to a confidentiality agreement with a third party. See Foltz at 1135. Plaintiff’s declaration 

has not provided the “something more” required by this Circuit in Kamakana – for example, that 

the public disclosure of the documents would cause Plaintiff some particularized economic harm –

and the Court therefore DENIES the motion to seal. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff 

filing a supplemental declaration outlining compelling reasons that would suffice to seal these two 

exhibits, as required by Kamakana and Phillips. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03704-BLF Document 67 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2