1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOTION 

TO EXLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF RICHARD DONALDSON

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, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

MOTION TO EXLUDE EXPERT 

REPORTS OF RICHARD 

DONALDSON

Re: Dkt. No. 800

On August 30, 2018, Defendant Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) filed an administrative 

motion to seal the motion to exclude expert reports of Richard Donaldson. ECF No. 800. 

Qualcomm also moved to seal, in their entirety, 3 exhibits to the motion to exclude expert reports 

of Richard Donaldson. Id. The 3 exhibits are: (1) the expert report of Richard Donaldson; (2) the 

rebuttal report of Richard Donaldson; and (3) excerpts from the deposition transcript of Richard 

Donaldson. However, Qualcomm’s request to seal the entirety of the 3 exhibits is clearly 

overbroad and therefore inappropriate. For example, the expert report of Richard Donaldson 

includes such items as Donaldson’s name, employment history, and generalized opinions 

regarding Qualcomm’s “no license no chips” policy. The rebuttal report similarly contains 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 977 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOTION 

TO EXLUDE EXPERT REPORTS OF RICHARD DONALDSON

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

generalized opinions relating to Qualcomm’s policies. The excerpts from the deposition transcript 

contain overviews of Donaldson’s expert methodology, objections from counsel, and so on. None 

of the aforementioned examples are sealable under the law. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring “compelling reasons supported by 

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

favoring disclosure” to seal records relating to motions that are more than tangentially related to 

the underlying cause of action); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 

1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or 

harm will result” if information is disclosed in records associated with motions only tangentially 

related to the merits of a case).

Therefore, Qualcomm’s administrative motion to seal the motion to exclude expert reports 

of Richard Donaldson is DENIED without prejudice. If Qualcomm chooses to refile its 

administrative motion, such a motion must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, this Court’s Order 

at ECF No. 821, and applicable case law, and must be filed by December 18, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 977 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 2