Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04853-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-04853-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

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. K.G., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 272, 280, 282, 293, 297, 

302, 307, 311)

Before the court are eight 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 dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling 

reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.4

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

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

their competitive interest.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

 

1

See Docket Nos. 272, 280, 282, 293, 297, 302, 307, 311.

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

Id. at 1178-79.

5

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

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 321 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 14-cv-04853-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

to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties 

moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive 

motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8

that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A 

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

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 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.12

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 

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).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

 

6

See id. at 1180.

7

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8

Id.

9

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).

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

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

12 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.”).

13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 321 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 14-cv-04853-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

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.”14

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

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

272 Letter Brief in Opposition 

to Novadaq’s Request re: 

Heather Arnold

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

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

272 Exhibit A to the Letter 

Brief

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

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

280 Exhibit C to the Taylor 

Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 280-4 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

280 Exhibit D to the Taylor 

Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 280-6

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

280 Exhibit E to the Taylor 

Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 280-8

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

 

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).

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

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 321 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 14-cv-04853-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

282 Novadaq’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

from Jesse David

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 282-4

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

293 Defendants’ Opposition to 

Novadaq’s Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

from Jesse David

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 293-3 on 

pages 10-11, 13-14 SEALED; all 

other designations UNSEALED.

Only sealed 

designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

297 Novadaq’s Motion for 

Leave to File Motion for 

Reconsideration of Order 

Granting Summary 

Judgment of No Willful 

Infringement

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

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

302 Exhibit B to the Taylor 

Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

black at Docket No. 319-1 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

302 Exhibit C to the Taylor 

Declaration

UNSEALED Designating party has 

indicated that 

document may be 

filed publicly.15

302 Exhibit E to the Taylor 

Declaration

UNSEALED Designating party has 

indicated that 

document may be 

filed publicly.16

302 Exhibit H to the Taylor 

Declaration

Designations highlighted in 

black at Docket No. 319-2

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

 

15 See Docket No. 319 at ¶ 5.

16 See id.

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 321 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 14-cv-04853-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

307 Defendants’ Omnibus 

Motion in Limine

UNSEALED Designated portions 

are not confidential 

business information.

307 Exhibit 3 to the Lavine 

Declaration

UNSEALED No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

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

311 Novadaq’s Reply in 

Support of Motion to 

Exclude Expert Testimony 

from Jesse David

Designations highlighted in 

yellow at Docket No. 311-3 

SEALED; all other designations 

UNSEALED.

Designated portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04853-PSG Document 321 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 5