Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03385-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

TERIX COMPUTER COMPANY, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 431, 433) 

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal multiple documents. “Historically, 

courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a 

‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 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.3

 

1 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)). 

2 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

3 Id. at 1178-79. 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

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

For the Northern District of California

 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.”4

 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.5

 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).6 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9

 A protective order 

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good 

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 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.11

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 

 

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

5 See id. at 1180. 

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

7 Id.

8 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). 

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

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

11 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.”). 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

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

For the Northern District of California

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

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.”13

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows: 

Motion 

to Seal 

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reason/Explanation 

431 Opposition to 

Defendants’ 

Motion to Strike 

Affirmative 

Defenses

• Page 5:23-24 UNSEALED

• Page 6:5 UNSEALED

• Page 6:6-7 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• Page 6:9 UNSEALED

• Page 6:14-15 UNSEALED

• Page 12:17-19 UNSEALED

• Page 13:9-10 UNSEALED

• Page 16:27-28 specific customer 

references SEALED

• Page 17:14-19 UNSEALED, except 

 Page 17:15-16 specific customer 

references SEALED

 Page 17:18 specific customer 

reference SEALED • All other designations UNSEALED

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

and customer 

information. 

While the protective 

order extends to names 

of individuals 

employed by Terix 

customers, it does not 

extend to individuals 

employed by Terix, 

i.e. Mr. Appleby who 

tendered the 

declaration in support 

of sealing.

431 Exhibit 1 

(Docket No. 

432-1) 

UNSEALED Declaration as filed 

does not support 

sealing.

431 Exhibit 22 UNSEALED No such exhibit filed 

with the court. 

 

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

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).

13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time 

available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As 

this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5 

for the purposes of this order. 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

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

For the Northern District of California

431 Exhibit 4 

(Docket No. 

431-6) 

• Page 7:6 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• Page 8:11 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• Page 10:26 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• Page 14:17-26; “See, e.g.” until “Terix” 

SEALED

• Page 18:27-19:10 SEALED, except 

 Page 19:3-19:7; “See, e.g.” 

through “Ex. 565” UNSEALED • Page 20:12 UNSEALED • Page 20:25 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• All other designations UNSEALED

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

and customer 

information. 

While the protective 

order extends to names 

of individuals 

employed by Terix 

customers, it does not 

extend to individuals 

employed by Terix, 

i.e. Mr. Appleby who 

tendered the 

declaration in support 

of sealing.

431 Exhibit 5 

(Docket No. 

431-8) 

• Page 3:10-19 UNSEALED

• Page 31:5-7; line 5 through “Terix is” 

SEALED

• Page 32:22-38:15 SEALED 

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

or customer 

information. 

431 Exhibit 6 

(Docket No. 

431-10) 

• Page 18:13-23 SEALED

• Pages 20:8-21:15 SEALED • Pages 23:24-24:9 SEALED

Narrowly tailored to 

confidential customer 

information. 

431 Exhibit 7 

(Docket No. 

431-12) 

• Page 4:2-3 SEALED

• Pages 46:5-144:24 portions outlined in 

black SEALED

• Page 145:1 specific customer reference 

SEALED

• Page 145:14-17,23 specific customer 

references SEALED

• Page 146:1,3,5,6,8,10,14-17,19,23-25 

specific customer references SEALED

• Page 147:5,6,10,16,19,24 specific 

customer references SEALED

• Page 148:13,17,20,24-25 specific 

customer references SEALED

• Page 149:3,7,10,18,23-25 specific 

customer references SEALED

• All other designations UNSEALED

Narrowly tailored to 

confidential customer 

information. 

433 Exhibit A 

(Docket No. 

433-4) 

• Page 18:18-21 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Pages 18:23-19:1 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 19:5-6 UNSEALED

• Page 19:26 UNSEALED 

• Page 21:16 UNSEALED • Page 23:9-15 redacted portions 

SEALED

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

and customer 

information. 

While the protective 

order extends to names 

of individuals 

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

Case No. 5:13-cv-03385-PSG

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

For the Northern District of California

• Pages 23:23-24:9 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 24:21-22 UNSEALED

• Page 24:26-27 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 25:2-3 UNSEALED

• Page 25:18 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 25:20 UNSEALED 

• Page 25:25 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 26:8 redacted portions SEALED

• Page 26:12 UNSEALED

• Page 26:15 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 26:21 UNSEALED 

• Page 26:28 UNSEALED 

• Page 27:2 UNSEALED 

• Page 27:14-20 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 28:6-9 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 28:10-17 UNSEALED, except 

 Line 14 after “Ex. 565” through 

line 17 SEALED 

• Page 29:13 UNSEALED 

• Page 29:24 UNSEALED 

• Pages 29:26-30:4 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 30:8-9 UNSEALED

• Page 32:11-13 UNSEALED

• Page 33:3-12 redacted portions 

SEALED

• All other designations UNSEALED

employed by Terix 

customers, it does not 

extend to individuals 

employed by Terix, 

i.e. Mr. Appleby who 

tendered the 

declaration in support 

of sealing.

433 Exhibit B 

(Docket No. 

433-6) 

• Page 16:17 UNSEALED 

• Page 16:25-28 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 17:2-8 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 17:12-13 UNSEALED

• Page 17:13 UNSEALED 

• Page 18:7-8 UNSAELED

• Page 19:26 UNSEALED 

• Page 21:19-25 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 22:5-19 redacted portions 

SEALED

• Page 23:3-4 UNSEALED

• Page 23:8-9 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 23:12-13 UNSEALED • Page 23:16-17 from start of line 16 until 

“For both contracts” SEALED 

• Page 23:28 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:2 UNSEALED • Page 24:7 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:18 redacted portions SEALED • Page 24:22 UNSEALED • Page 24:25 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 24:28 redacted portions SEALED 

• Page 25:3 UNSEALED

Only sealed portions 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

and customer 

information. 

While the protective 

order extends to names 

of individuals 

employed by Terix 

customers, it does not 

extend to individuals 

employed by Terix, 

i.e. Mr. Appleby who 

tendered the 

declaration in support 

of sealing.

Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:13-cv-03385-JST Document 469 Filed 01/28/15 Page 6 of 6