Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 378

[Re: ECF 378]

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal their opposition brief to Plaintiff’s motion 

for leave to file a fifth amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 378. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 422 Filed 01/22/19 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

Parties moving to seal documents must also 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).” 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). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ sealing motion and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling 

reasons to seal certain portions of one of the exhibits to Defendants’ opposition brief. The 

proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests 

are set forth in the table below. 

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

378-4 Google’s Opposition to 

Space Data’s Motion for 

Leave to File Fifth 

Amended Complaint

DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party, 

does not seek to seal any portion 

of this document. See Plaintiff’s 

Response at 1, ECF 383. 

378-5 Exhibit E to Kamber 

Decl. i/s/o Google’s 

Opposition to Space 

Data’s Motion for Leave 

to File Fifth Amended 

Complaint

DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party, 

does not seek to seal any portion 

of this document. See Plaintiff’s 

Response at 1, ECF 383. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 422 Filed 01/22/19 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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

378-6 Exhibit G to Kamber 

Decl. i/s/o Google’s 

Opposition to Space 

Data’s Motion for Leave 

to File Fifth Amended 

Complaint

GRANTED as to the 

portions marked by 

Plaintiff, the designating 

party, at 16:18-22; 

17:3-6; 18:10. 

See ECF 383-1. 

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Contains confidential and 

proprietary technical information 

relating to balloon coverage 

simulations and assessing 

balloon/platform performance; 

contains sensitive financial 

information. Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 

ECF 383-2. Disclosure of this 

information may cause serious 

economic harm to Plaintiff. Id.

¶ 7. 

Plaintiff, the designating party, 

does not seek to seal the 

remainder. See Plaintiff’s 

Response at 1, ECF 383. 

378-7 Exhibit P to Kamber 

Decl. i/s/o Google’s 

Opposition to Space 

Data’s Motion for Leave 

to File Fifth Amended 

Complaint

DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party, 

does not seek to seal any portion 

of this document. See Plaintiff’s 

Response at 1, ECF 383. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ sealing motion at ECF 378 is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied in whole or in part, if the 

designating party has not already publicly submitted the properly redacted version of the 

documents, the submitting party shall file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the 

public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 422 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 3