Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00925/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00925-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

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

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,

Plaintiff,

v.

XILINX INC,

Defendant.

Case No.16-CV-00925-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING 

MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 108, 109

Before the Court are administrative motions by both parties to file under seal documents 

and briefing related to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. ECF Nos. 103, 109. Also before 

the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document. ECF No. 108.

“Historically, courts have recognized 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) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 

Case 5:16-cv-00925-LHK Document 114 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

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

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons 

justifying the sealing of court records 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. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The 

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 

Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

In the instant motions, the parties seek to seal documents and briefing related to 

Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Because a motion for attorneys’ fees is “not related, or 

only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” the Court applies the “good cause” standard to 

Case 5:16-cv-00925-LHK Document 114 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

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

evaluate the parties’ sealing requests. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that 

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the 

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document 

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

With these principles in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Case 5:16-cv-00925-LHK Document 114 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTIONS AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO REMOVE 

INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT

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 Seal

Standard Document Ruling

103 Good 

Cause

Defendant’s Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees and the 

Declaration of Glenn E. 

Westreich in Support of 

Defendant’s Motion

GRANTED

109 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of Nicole E. 

Glauser in Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees

GRANTED

Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a motion to remove Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicole 

E. Glauser as improperly filed. ECF No. 108. This exhibit, which contains confidential 

information, was originally filed publicly. However, the exhibit has since been locked, and the 

Court has granted Plaintiff’s request to file the exhibit under seal. Accordingly, the motion to 

remove the exhibit as improperly filed is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00925-LHK Document 114 Filed 07/28/16 Page 4 of 4