1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case No.: 20-22051-CIV-MARTINEZ-OTAZO-REYES 

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A., 3G 

LICENSING S.A., and SISVEL S.p.A., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HMD AMERICA, INC. and HMD 

GLOBAL OY, 

Defendants. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

SUBMIT COMPLETE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Defendants HMD America, Inc. and HMD Global Oy (“HMD”), by and through counsel, 

pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4 and in accordance with Section 5A of the S.D. Fla. CM/ECF 

Administrative Procedures, respectfully moves this Court for leave to file under seal an 

unredacted version of Defendants’ Certificate of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure 

Statement and an extension of time to submit that unredacted Certificate Of Interested Parties 

and Corporate Disclosure Statement one (1) day following the Court’s order on this Motion. In 

support of this Motion, HMD states as follows: 

1. HMD has publicly filed concurrently herewith a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

7.1 (“Rule 7.1”) Corporate Disclosure Statement reporting that Defendant HMD America Inc. “is 

a privately held wholly-owned subsidiary of HMD Global Oy,” that Defendant HMD Global Oy 

“has no parent corporation,” and that “[n]o publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of HMD 

Global Oy’s stock.” 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 1 of 5
2 

2. The Court’s Scheduling Order requires the parties to also submit a Certificate of 

Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statement (“Disclosure Statement”). See Dkt. No. 9 

¶11. The Disclosure Statement must contain “a complete list” containing “ALL subsidiaries, 

conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a 

party” among other requirements.” Id. HMD has filed herewith a redacted copy of that 

Disclosure Statement, and requests that the Court allow HMD to file under seal the unredacted 

list of subsidiaries in HMD’s multi-national corporate structure.1

3. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted requests to seal corporate disclosure 

statements, the type of document at issue in this motion. See, e.g., Gadson v. Walker, 532 U.S. 

1003 (2001) (granting Baxter Healthcare motion for leave to file “Rule 29.6 corporate disclosure 

statement under seal”); Spece Jr. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 526 U.S. 1081 (1999) (same). 

Courts in the Eleventh Circuit “balance the competing interests of the parties” when determining 

whether to grant a narrow request to seal particular documents within the record. See PerezGuerrero v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235-36 (11th Cir. 2013). Although there exists a 

presumption that judicial records should be available to the public, the “case law lists several 

relevant factors to consider, including whether the records are sought for such illegitimate 

purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage, [and] whether 

access is likely to promote public understanding historically significant events.” Id. (citation 

and quotations omitted). 

 

1

 HMD’s counsel has concurrently served an unredacted copy of the Disclosure Statement to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel on an outside-counsel eyes only basis subject to agreement between counsel. 

HMD’s counsel understands that the unredacted copy is not to be filed under seal until the Court 

rules on HMD’s Motion to File Under Seal. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 5.4 (“The proposed sealed 

material shall not be filed unless the Court grants the motion to file under seal.”). HMD stands 

ready to provide the unredacted Disclosure Statement for the Court’s review in camera. 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 2 of 5
3 

4. There are two interests that independently and cumulatively weigh in favor of 

granting HMD’s motion. These interests establish that public disclosure of HMD’s entire 

international ownership structure would cause significant harm to HMD. On the other hand, 

public disclosure of such information would serve no substantial and legitimate purpose. 

5. First, HMD has numerous subsidiaries that are based in and organized under the 

laws of foreign (that is, non-U.S.) nations. HMD might violate the laws of foreign nations by 

publicly listing its foreign subsidiaries and affiliates in the Disclosure Statement. The laws 

governing disclosure of corporate ownership vary country-by-country, and HMD operates 

subsidiaries in nations where such information is nonpublic by default. HMD’s Disclosure 

Statement lists almost twenty different corporate entities that operate in almost as many nations. 

The burden of reviewing and analyzing the laws of each of these nations to determine which 

nations prohibit or discourage disclosure, the extent to which disclosure is prohibited or 

discouraged, and any contractual obligations HMD may have to report such disclosure, far 

outweighs any public interest in this information as set forth below. 

6. Second, to Counsel’s best investigative efforts to date, the entire listing of HMD’s 

subsidiary and affiliate relationships is not publicly known. Public disclosure of these 

relationships would cause strategic business disadvantage. See, e.g., True Health Chiropractic 

Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 2015 WL 3409721 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2015) (granting unopposed 

motion to seal corporate structure). Nearly all of the subsidiaries and affiliates listed in HMD’s 

Disclosure Statement are sales and marketing entities that operate in foreign nations. The 

nations in which they operate, and the nations in which they are incorporated, are often identified 

by the entity name alone. Public disclosure of this information would provide a roadmap to 

HMD’s global business strategy and allocation of resources. HMD’s competitors could use this 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 3 of 5
4 

information, for example, to alter their own strategic business resources to compete with HMD 

globally, and future litigants against HMD could use this nonpublic information to place HMD at 

a strategic disadvantage. 

7. Disclosure of HMD’s ownership structure would be of little, if any, benefit to the 

public. This is a United States patent infringement action that does not involve HMD’s foreign 

subsidiaries and affiliates. Indeed, nearly all of those entities are local sales and marketing 

affiliates in foreign nations that should not be involved in this action at any point. Nor is the 

ownership of those entities “historically significant.” Perez-Guerrero, 717 F.3d at 1235-36. 

Furthermore, HMD understands the purpose of a Corporate Disclosure Statement is to allow the 

Court to identify potential basis for recusal. See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 advisory 

committee’s note. Because the combination of HMD’s public and sealed filings provides an 

adequate basis, further disclosure is unlikely to serve the public. The public and Plaintiffs will 

have the information that is provided in almost all other civil litigations under Rule 7.1, while the 

Court and opposing counsel will have the detailed information set forth in the unredacted 

Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statement. 

8. For the foregoing reasons, HMD respectfully requests the Court enter an Order 

that an unredacted version of Defendants’ Corporate Disclosure Statement is to be filed under 

seal under further order of the Court. 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 4 of 5
5 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION 

Counsel for the movant has conferred in writing and telephonically with counsel for all 

plaintiffs in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the Motion. Plaintiff has taken no 

position on this Motion. 

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Joseph W. Bain 

JOSEPH W. BAIN, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No. 860360 

Email Address: jbain@shutts.com 

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 

1100 CityPlace Tower 

525 Okeechobee Boulevard 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 

Telephone: (561) 835-8500 

Facsimile: (561) 650-8530 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HMD 

AMERICA, INC. AND HMD GLOBAL OY

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are 

being served with a copy of this document on September 4, 2020. 

 /s/ Joseph W. Bain 

 Joseph W. Bain 

59906489 v1 

Case 1:20-cv-22051-JEM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 5 of 5