1

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL THE JOINT 

PRETRIAL STATEMENT

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL THE JOINT PRETRIAL 

STATEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 950

Before the Court is the joint administrative motion to seal portions of the joint pretrial 

statement and accompanying exhibits. ECF No. 950. The Court DENIES without prejudice the 

motion.

“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 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1138 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL THE JOINT 

PRETRIAL STATEMENT

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.

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court finds that the motion to seal the joint 

pretrial statement is overbroad and includes information that has been publicly disclosed or that is 

too general to be sealed under the compelling reasons standard. In addition, the motion fails to 

clearly specify which declarations, if any, support each sealing request.

The parties shall refile one joint motion to seal portions of the joint trial statement. The 

parties shall include with the joint motion a chart with a row for each portion of any document that 

is sought to be sealed. The chart shall include four columns that describe: (1) whose confidential 

information is to be sealed, (2) where the confidential information appears, (3) the number of the 

paragraph(s) in a specific declaration(s) justifying the sealing of that information under the 

compelling reasons standard, and (4) any explanations. The parties shall attach to the motion 

updated versions of all documents to be sealed that reflect only the information that the parties still 

seek to seal. Consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5, these attachments shall indicate by 

highlighting the portions of the document that the parties seek to seal. The parties shall file any 

such joint motion to seal by January 14, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1138 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL THE JOINT 

PRETRIAL STATEMENT

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

Dated: January 6, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1138 Filed 01/06/19 Page 3 of 3