Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03844/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03844-24/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Icon-IP Pty Ltd.
Counter-defendant
Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

ICON-IP PTY LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03844-JST 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: ECF Nos. 151, 174, 176, 191, 211

Before the Court are five administrative motions to file under seal filed by Plaintiff Icon-IP 

Pty Ltd. (“Icon”) and Defendant Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc. (“Specialized”). ECF Nos. 

151, 174, 176, 191, 211. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant these motions in part 

and deny them in part.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the Court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all court 

documents other than grand jury transcripts and pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 provides that a sealing order may be issued

only upon a request that (1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law;” and (2) is “narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion 

to file under seal must also meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “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.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 15
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

With respect to the second prong, the showing required to overcome the strong 

presumption of access to judicial records depends on the type of motion to which the document is 

attached. When the materials at issue are attached to dispositive pleadings, “including motions for 

summary judgment and related attachments,” the party seeking a sealing order must “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-80 (internal alterations and citations omitted). 

On the other hand, when a party seeks to “preserv[e] the secrecy of sealed discovery 

material attached to non-dispositive motions,” the party need only make “a particularized showing 

under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c)” to justify sealing the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential 

“to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

A district court must “articulate [the] reasoning or findings underlying its decision to seal.” 

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied., 132 S. Ct. 2374 

(2012). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to File under Seal Documents Related to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 151)

Defendants seek to file under seal unredacted Exhibits 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 54, 58, 59, 

60, and 61 to the Declaration of Darrell L. Olsen in Support of Specialized’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. ECF No. 151. Icon has designated information in Exhibits 28 and 54 confidential. 

ECF No. 151-1 at 1. Specialized has designated information in the remaining exhibits

confidential. Id. at 2. 

Because these documents relate to a dispositive motion, the “compelling reasons” standard 

applies. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 

and justify sealing court records 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, 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 15
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

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (“courts have refused to 

permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption or as sources 

of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” (internal citations 

omitted)). The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade secret in this 

context as “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.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit 

has similarly concluded that, under Ninth Circuit law, pricing, profit, and customer usage 

information, when kept confidential by a company, is appropriately sealable under the 

“compelling reasons” standard where that information could be used to the company’s competitive 

disadvantage. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

The “compelling reasons” standard is a strict one. “Simply mentioning a general category 

of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. In particular, “[a]n unsupported assertion of 

unfair advantage to competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information to 

obtain an unfair advantage is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 

WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); 

Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2014 WL 7368594, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 

2014). 

1. Exhibit 28 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

The request to seal Exhibit 28 is granted. The Court is satisfied that the redacted portions 

of the transcript of the deposition of third party Paul Nelson include “highly sensitive business 

information regarding Mr. Nelson’s ownership of Nelson Seating Pty. Ltd.” that could damage 

Nelson’s business interests, see ECF No. 178 at 2, and that this constitutes a compelling reason to 

seal this material. The request meets the narrow tailoring requirement because only confidential 

information has been redacted from the transcript. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 15
4

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

2. Exhibits 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment

The requests to seal Exhibits 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment are denied. Specialized explains that these deposition transcripts contain confidential 

information about Specialized’s research and development of its saddles; budget for research and 

development; proprietary design and manufacturing process; marketing, sales, and revenue; and 

confidential consulting and licensing agreements with third parties. ECF No. 151-1, at 2-4. 

Specialized states that this information is not publicly available and that public release would 

result in an invasion of third parties’ privacy and a competitive disadvantage to Specialized. Id. 

The Court has reviewed these transcripts and concludes that although there may be 

compelling reasons to seal some portions of some or all of these exhibits, Specialized has failed to 

articulate these reasons or to explain why the exhibits must be sealed in their entirety. The 

declaration filed in support of the motion to file these documents under seal, like the declarations 

filed by Specialized in support of the remaining administrative motions discussed in this order,1

does not claim that there are compelling reasons to seal them. Rather, Specialized cites Dynetic 

Design Solutions Inc. v. Synopsys Inc., No. 11-cv-05973-PSG, 2013 WL 2285210, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. May 23, 2013), for the proposition that “records attached to nondispositive motions are not 

subject to the presumption of public access.” Id. at 3. These documents have been filed in 

connection with a dispositive motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 153 at 3-4 (“Grant of 

this motion is case dispositive . . . .”). Specialized must therefore present “compelling reasons 

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

3. Exhibit 54 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The request to seal Exhibit 54 is denied. This document “contains information regarding 

confidential negotiations between Mr. Nelson and Selle Royal regarding development of saddles 

under a licensing agreement.” ECF No. 178 at 2. The Court is satisfied that the release of certain 

 

1

See ECF No. 179 (Declaration of Benjamin J. Everton) at 2; ECF No. 177 (Declaration of Karen 

Vogel) at 3; ECF No. 197 (Declaration of Benjamin J. Everton) at 2. 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 15
5

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

details relating to a licensing agreement could be valuable to other potential licensees and that 

preventing potential damage to Mr. Nelson’s business interests could constitute a compelling 

reason to seal this information. However, the Court is not persuaded that compelling reasons exist 

to seal the entirety of this document and therefore concludes that the request is not “narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

4. Exhibit 58 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

The request to seal Exhibit 58 is granted. This exhibit contains information about 

assignments, and consulting and license agreements between a third party consultant and 

Specialized. ECF No. 151-1, at 4. The Court is satisfied that release of this information would 

result in an invasion of the third party’s privacy, that Specialized would suffer competitive harm if 

this material were made public, and that there are therefore compelling reasons to file this exhibit 

in its entirety under seal. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(finding compelling reasons to seal the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 

payment terms found in a licensing agreement). More specifically, the Court is satisfied that 

disclosing the terms of these agreements would put Specialized at a disadvantage in future 

negotiations for similar agreements. 

5. Exhibits 59, 60, and 61 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The requests to seal Exhibits 59, 60, and 61 are granted. These exhibits contain 

confidential information about invoices and payments to third party consultants. ECF No. 151-1 

at 4-6. The Court is satisfied that release of this information would result in an invasion of the 

privacy of the third party consultants and that disclosing this financial information would put 

Specialized at a disadvantage in negotiations for similar agreements. These concerns constitute 

compelling reasons to seal these documents. The request is narrowly tailored because the exhibits 

contain only confidential information related to invoices and payments. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 15
6

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

B. Motion to File under Seal Documents Related to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Roger Minkow, MD; and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude James McIlvain and Paragraphs 90, 104, 106, 

127, 159, 163, 194, and 203 of the Expert Rebuttal Report of Jeffrey Kinrich 

(ECF No. 174)

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits J and M to Icon’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment; Icon’s Unredacted Motion for Summary Judgment; Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to 

Exclude Roger Minkow, MD; and Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to Exclude James McIlvain and 

Paragraphs 90, 104, 106, 127, 159, 163, 194, and 203 of the Expert Rebuttal Report of Jeffrey 

Kinrich, which reference McIlvain’s opinions. ECF No. 174. These exhibits have been 

designated confidential by Specialized. Id. 

The “compelling reasons” standard applies to documents submitted in support of 

dispositive motions, like Icon’s motion for summary judgment. It also applies, “[i]n some cases,” 

to “a Daubert motion connected to a pending summary judgment motion [that] may be effectively 

dispositive of a motion for summary judgment.” In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales 

Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 -20 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In In re Midland National 

Life Insurance Company Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, the Ninth Circuit found that judicial 

records linked to a Daubert motion were filed “in connection” with pending summary judgment 

motions, and that the “compelling reasons” standard therefore applied, where the “records at issue 

pertain[ed] to ‘central issues bearing on defendant’s summary judgment motion’” and the 

challenged expert had been appointed to assist the court in resolving the motion. In re Midland 

Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d at 1120 (quoting San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir 1999)). 

Here, the Court concludes that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to the records 

filed in connection with Icon’s Motion to Exclude Roger Minkow, MD. Specialized relies on 

Minkow’s expert report for its argument that the accused bicycle saddles do not infringe the 

asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,378,938 (“’938 patent”). See ECF No. 153 at 28-31. 

Because Minkow’s report pertains to “central issues bearing on defendant’s summary judgment 

motion,” and because exclusion of the report “may be effectively dispositive” of Specialized’s 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 15
7

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

non-infringement argument with respect to the ’938 patent, use of the “compelling reasons” 

standard is appropriate. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 

F.3d at 1119-20 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

With respect to the documents filed in connection with Icon’s Motion to Exclude James 

McIlvain and Paragraphs 90, 104, 106, 127, 159, 163, 194, and 203 of the Expert Rebuttal Report 

of Jeffrey Kinrich, however, the Court will apply the good cause standard applicable to nondispositive motions. Specialized retained McIlvain to provide expert testimony in order to 

respond to Icon’s damages claim. ECF No. 180 at 1. His report addresses “the bases for the 

commercial success of Specialized’s Body Geometry line of saddles.” ECF No. 169-3 at 1. But 

McIlvain is not a damages expert, and Jeffrey Kinrich, who is Specialized’s damages expert, 

testified that he relied on McIlvain’s opinions “[t]o the smallest degree” and that “[i]f [they] didn’t 

exist, it wouldn’t change anything.” ECF No. 18-1 at 14:22-15:16. Because the exclusion of 

McIlvain’s testimony would not be effectively dispositive of any of the issues raised in the parties’ 

motions for summary judgment, the Court concludes that the good cause standard applies. 

1. Exhibits J and M to Icon’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The requests to seal Exhibits J and M to Icon’s Motion for Summary Judgment are denied. 

Specialized explains that these deposition transcripts contain confidential information relating to 

marketing strategies, manufacturing and distribution, research and development, and design. ECF 

No. 179 at 2-3. Specialized states that this information is not publicly available and that public 

release would result in competitive harm to Specialized. Id. The Court has reviewed these 

transcripts and concludes that although there may be compelling reasons to seal some portions of 

one or both of these exhibits, Specialized has failed to articulate these reasons or to explain why 

the exhibits should be sealed in their entirety. Because the Court is denying the requests to seal 

Exhibits J and M under seal, it also denies the request to seal portions of Icon’s motion for 

summary judgment that refer to or contain excerpts from Exhibits J and M. 

2. Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to Exclude Roger Minkow, MD

The request to seal Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to Exclude Roger Minkow, MD is denied. 

Specialized states that this exhibit contains “confidential deposition testimony of a third party” and 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 7 of 15
8

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

proprietary technical information about Specialized’s research, development, testing, and design 

of its saddles. ECF No. 179 at 1. According to Specialized, this information is not publicly 

available, and release would result in competitive harm to Specialized. Id. The Court has 

reviewed this transcript, and concludes that although there may be compelling reasons to seal 

some portions of this exhibit, Specialized has failed to articulate these reasons or to explain why 

the exhibit should be sealed in its entirety. 

3. Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to Exclude James McIlvain and Paragraphs 

90, 104, 106, 127, 159, 163, 194, and 203 of the Expert Rebuttal Report 

of Jeffrey Kinrich

The request to seal Exhibit C to Icon’s Motion to Exclude James McIlvain and Paragraphs 

90, 104, 106, 127, 159, 163, 194, and 203 is denied. The Court is satisfied that good cause exists 

to seal portions of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Jeffrey Kinrich, which contains confidential 

information relating to sales, revenues, profits and costs, consulting and licensing agreements, 

manufacturing, pricing, and sales and marketing strategies. ECF No. 179 at 1-2. Specialized 

states that this information is not publicly available, and that release would result in competitive 

harm to Specialized. Id. The Court has reviewed the report and concludes that sealing is 

appropriate to protect Specialized from the “undue burden” that would result from public release 

of this information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Specialized has not, however, established that there 

is good cause to seal the entire report, which also contains publicly available information. 

Because the request is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material,” as required 

by Local Rule 79-5, it must be denied. 

C. Motion to File under Seal Documents Related to Defendant’s Motion to

Exclude Frank Bernatowicz (ECF No. 176)

Defendant seeks to file under seal its unredacted Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz 

and Exhibits 1, 4, and 5 to this motion. ECF No. 177. Icon is the designating party for Exhibits 1 

and 4. Id. at 1. Specialized is the designating party for Exhibit 5. Id. Both Icon and Specialized 

have designated confidential information referenced in Specialized’s Motion to Exclude Frank 

Bernatowicz. Id. 

The Court concludes that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to documents filed in 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 8 of 15
9

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

connection with Specialized’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz. This motion is “aimed 

squarely at the other side’s damages methodology” and “[e]xclusion of this testimony could cause 

a crippling blow to the sponsoring party’s ability to prove its case.” Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., 

2014 WL 7368594, at *2. The “compelling reasons” standard is therefore appropriate. Id.; see

also In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d at 1119-20. 

1. Exhibits 1 and 4 to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz

The request to seal Exhibit 4, a settlement agreement between Nelson Seating Pty Ltd. and 

Selle Royal, is granted. Icon explains that this agreement contains sensitive information that 

Nelson and Selle Royal contractually agreed to keep confidential, and that Nelson would be 

harmed if the material were made public. ECF No. 178 at 3. After reviewing these documents, 

the Court is satisfied that the release of this information would result in competitive harm to 

Nelson and that there are therefore compelling reasons to file this exhibit in its entirety under seal. 

The request to seal Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz is 

denied. Exhibit 1 is Bernatowicz’s expert report. Specialized identifies Icon as the designating 

party for this document. ECF No. 177 at 1. Icon identifies paragraphs 32, 41, 53, and page 25 as 

containing information concerning the settlement agreement filed as Exhibit 4. ECF No. 178 at 3. 

Specialized states that paragraphs 41 (last bullet point), 59, 60, 61, 63-65, 74, 76, 83, 84, 96, 99, 

100, 116, 117, 122-24, 126, and Exhibits 1-4 and 10 “contain information that is sealable” because 

they discuss Specialized’s pricing, sales, and profit information; consulting relationships; and/or 

settlement agreements. ECF No. 177 at 2. Because no redacted version or highlighted 

unredacted version of the document has been filed, however, the Court cannot identify which parts 

of these paragraphs the parties seek to file under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). The Court finds 

that this request is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material” and the request 

is therefore denied. Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

2. Exhibit 5 to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz 

The request to seal Exhibit 5 is denied. In its declaration in support of the motion to seal, 

Specialized states only that Exhibit 5 “do[es] contain information that is sealable.” ECF No. 177 

at 2. There is no further explanation of why this deposition transcript should be filed under seal. 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 9 of 15
10

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

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Specialized has failed to “articulate 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 1178-80 (internal alternations and citations 

omitted). 

3. Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz 

The request to seal the Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz is denied. As an initial 

matter, this request does not comply with Local Rule 79-5, which states that an administrative

motion to file under seal must be accompanied by an unredacted version of the document that 

“must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been 

omitted from the redacted version.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). Furthermore, Icon’s declaration 

does not state that any portion of this document should be sealed, ECF No. 178, and Specialized 

does not assert that there are “compelling reasons” to seal the redacted portions or explain how 

Specialized would be harmed if this information were released, ECF No. 177 at 2. 

D. Motion to File under Seal Documents Related to Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz (ECF No. 191)

Icon seeks to file under seal unredacted Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Frank Bernatowicz 

in Support of Icon’s Response to Specialized’s Motion for Summary Judgment; unredacted 

Exhibits 19, 20, 22, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 46, and 47 to the Declaration of Frederick C. Laney in 

Support of Icon’s Response to Specialized’s Motion for Summary Judgment; portions of Icon’s 

Response to Specialized’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and portions of Icon’s Response to 

Specialized’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz. Icon is the designating party for Exhibits 30, 

44, and 46 to the Laney declaration. ECF No. 191-1 at 2-3. Specialized is the designating party 

for the remaining documents. Id. As discussed above, because these documents have been filed 

in connection with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion to

Exclude Frank Bernatowicz, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. 

1. Exhibit 30 to the Laney Declaration 

The request to seal Exhibit 30 to the Laney Declaration is denied. Icon states that these 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 10 of 15
11

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

excerpts of the deposition testimony of Paul Nelson are highly confidential because they “relate[] 

to personal health issues.” ECF No. 191-1 at 2. While some portions of the transcript do 

reference personal health issues and there may be compelling reasons to seal them, the transcript 

also includes extensive discussion of unrelated topics. Because this request to seal is not 

“narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,” it must be denied. Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). 

2. Exhibits 44 and 46 to the Laney Declaration

The request to seal Exhibits 44 and 46 to the Laney Declaration is granted. The Court is 

satisfied that there are compelling reasons to seal these exhibits because they relate to personal 

health issues and because disclosure would cause a serious invasion of the privacy of a third party. 

These privacy interests are sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in the disclosure of judicial 

records. The Court is also satisfied that the request is narrowly tailored and that it is appropriate to 

seal these exhibits in their entirety. 

3. Exhibit 3 to the Bernatowicz Declaration

The request to seal Exhibit 3 to the Bernatowicz Declaration is denied. Exhibit 3 is

Bernatowicz’s expert report, which was also filed as Exhibit 1 to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude 

Frank Bernatowicz, and is discussed in Section II.C.1, above. In the declarations filed in support 

of this motion to file under seal, unlike the declarations discussed earlier, neither party identifies 

specific paragraphs containing confidential information. Rather, Specialized broadly states that 

the report contains confidential information concerning sales, revenues, profits and costs, 

consulting and license agreements, manufacturing and pricing, and sales and marketing strategies; 

and that release of this information would cause Specialized competitive harm. ECF No. 197 at 2. 

Although the report does contain information that may meet the “compelling reasons” standard, 

the Court finds that the request is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material” 

and it must therefore be denied. Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

4. Exhibits 19, 20, 22, 33, and 34 to the Laney Declaration 

The requests to seal Exhibits 19, 20, 22, 33, and 34 to the Laney Declaration are denied. 

Specialized explains that these deposition transcripts contain confidential deposition testimony of 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 11 of 15
12

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

a third party as well as confidential information about Specialized’s research and development of 

its saddles; budget for research and development; proprietary design and manufacturing process; 

marketing, sales, and revenue; and consulting and licensing agreements with third parties. ECF 

No. 197 at 1-4. Specialized states that this information is not publicly available and that public 

release would result in competitive disadvantage to Specialized. Id. The Court has reviewed these 

transcripts and concludes that although there may be compelling reasons to seal some portions of 

some or all of these exhibits, Specialized has failed to articulate these reasons as required by Ninth 

Circuit precedent or to explain why the exhibits must be sealed in their entirety. 

5. Exhibit 35 to the Laney Declaration

The request to seal Exhibit 35 to the Laney Declaration is denied. Exhibit 35 is a copy of

Specialized’s Responses to Icon’s first set of interrogatories. Specialized states that this document 

contains confidential information relating to sales, revenues, profits and costs, research and 

development, and design and testing processes. ECF No. 197 at 4. Specialized states that release 

of this information would result in competitive disadvantage to Specialized. Id. The Court has 

reviewed this document and concludes that although there may be compelling reasons to seal some 

portions of this exhibit, Specialized has failed to articulate these reasons or to explain why the 

exhibit should be sealed in its entirety. 

6. Exhibit 36 to the Laney Declaration

The request to seal Exhibit 36 is granted. The Court has reviewed the detailed financial 

data in this exhibit and is satisfied that release of this information would result in competitive 

harm to Specialized and that there are therefore compelling reasons to seal this document. The 

Court is also satisfied that it is appropriate to seal the exhibit in its entirety and that the narrow 

tailoring requirement is therefore satisfied. 

7. Exhibit 47 to the Laney Declaration

This document is identical to a portion of Exhibit 58 to Specialized’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, discussed in Section II.A.4, above. For the reasons discussed above, the request to seal 

this exhibit is granted. 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 12 of 15
13

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

8. Icon’s Responses to Specialized’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz 

The requests to seal Icon’s responses to Specialized’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz are denied. As an initial matter, these requests do not 

comply with Local Rule 79-5, which states that an administrative motion to file under seal must be 

accompanied by an unredacted version of the document that “must indicate, by highlighting or 

other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted 

version.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). Furthermore, Specialized does not assert that there are 

“compelling reasons” to seal the redacted portions or explain how Specialized would be harmed if 

this information were released. ECF No. 197 at 5-6. 

E. Motion to File under Seal Documents Related to Defendant’s Motion to 

Exclude Frank Bernatowicz (ECF No. 211) 

Specialized seeks to file under seal Exhibit 6 to the Supplemental Declaration of Karen 

Vogel Weil in Support of Specialized’s Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz, filed in connection 

with its reply in support of the Motion to Exclude Frank Bernatowicz. ECF No. 211-1 at 1. 

Specialized also seeks to file under seal portions of the reply. Id. at 1-2. Icon is the designating 

party for Exhibit 6, and both Icon and Specialized are designating parties for the information 

referenced in the reply. Because these documents were filed in connection with the Motion to 

Exclude Frank Bernatowicz, discussed above, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. 

1. Exhibit 6 to the Supplemental Weil Declaration

The request to seal Exhibit 6 to the Supplemental Weil Declaration is denied. Icon 

explains that this deposition transcript includes information that third party Paul Nelson has 

designated highly confidential because it contains sensitive business information regarding the 

amount of royalties received under a licensing agreement and because it includes information 

regarding his personal health and medical treatment. ECF No. 214 at 2. Icon asserts that if this 

information were released to the public, it could harm Nelson’s business and privacy interests and 

that this constitutes “good cause to seal” the exhibit. Id. at 2-3. The Court is satisfied that there 

are compelling reasons to seal some of the information contained in the transcript. In particular, 

the release of detailed information about a licensing agreement could damage Nelson’s position in 

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 13 of 15
14

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

future negotiations, and the release of information concerning his personal health and medical 

treatment would seriously infringe upon his privacy. However, this request fails to “seek sealing 

only of sealable material” and therefore violates the narrow tailoring requirement. Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). 

2. Specialized’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude Frank 

Bernatowicz 

The request to seal portions of Specialized’s reply is granted. The Court is satisfied that 

there are compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portion of the unredacted reply brief. The two 

paragraphs at issue contain information regarding the number of saddles sold and royalties 

received by Nelson. ECF No. 214 at 2-3. The release of this information could damage Nelson’s 

position in future negotiations. These paragraphs also discuss the quantity of Specialized’s 

accused saddle sales. ECF No. 211-1. The Court is satisfied that release of this information could 

cause Specialized competitive harm. The Court also concludes that the request is narrowly 

tailored in accordance with the local rules because the parties seek to seal only the two paragraphs 

containing sealable information. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2) and (3), the parties may file unredacted or revised 

redacted versions, as appropriate, of the documents discussed above that comply with the Court’s 

order within seven days. The parties may also file new motions to seal any or all of the documents 

discussed above within seven days. New motions to seal must comply with the narrow tailoring 

requirement; the “compelling reasons” and good cause standards, as appropriate; and Civil Local 

Rule 79-5. In particular, new motions shall comply with the requirement that the parties must file 

an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal that indicates, by highlighting

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 14 of 15
15

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

or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted 

version. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03844-JST Document 217 Filed 03/04/15 Page 15 of 15