Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919-15/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

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL STIPULATION BY THE 

PARTIES REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 7

[Re: ECF 164]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal portions of the 

Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 7. ECF 164. The redacted portions of 

the Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 7 relate to the financial information 

of Defendant which has been designated by Defendant as “Confidential” under the Protective 

Order entered in this matter. Id. at 2. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the 

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such 

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 215 Filed 06/02/16 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

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is 

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC, 

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an 

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a 

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). 

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local 

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party 

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to seal portions of the Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint 

Report No. 7 that relate to the financial information of Defendant. ECF 191 at 1. This 

information has been designated confidential by Defendant. Id. As the designating party,

Defendant filed a declaration indicating that this material discloses sensitive financial information 

held as a trade secret which could cause competitive injury if made public. Brown Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7, 

ECF 167. The Court finds the sealing request to be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 215 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2