Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SEAL AND STRIKING PORTIONS 

OF EXHIBIT A AND B TO 

DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 624

Qualcomm moves to seal attached exhibits to a discovery dispute regarding the 

FTC’s interrogatory responses. Dkt. No. 624. Qualcomm seeks to seal portions of both 

parties’ interrogatory responses. Before discussing the merits of this motion, the Court 

reminds the parties that it has previously ordered them not to file voluminous attachments 

to their discovery letters absent the Court requesting to review attachments. Dkt. No. 223.

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Access to motions and their 

attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed 

only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Conversely, filings that are only 

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id.

at 1097. Here, the Court deals with a discovery dispute only tangentially related to the 

merits of the case, so the “good cause” standard applies. The “good cause” standard 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 654 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 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

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 

1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “[S]ources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” often warrant protection 

under seal. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Sealing motions must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 

material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must 

file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). Merely stating that a party designated material as confidential under a 

protective order is insufficient by itself to seal a document. Id.

Before turning to Exhibit A: the FTC’s interrogatory responses, the Court STRIKES 

Exhibit B, Qualcomm’s “Objections and Responses” to the FTC’s interrogatories. Dkt.

No. 624-4. This discovery dispute centers around the FTC’s interrogatory responses, not 

Qualcomm’s responses. The Court understands that the FTC attached the responses to 

make a point, but given the Court’s admonition to litigants in these cases not to file 

unnecessary attachments to discovery letter briefs—especially where the litigant seek the 

Court to seal numerous portions of the attachment—the Court finds striking the attachment

particularly appropriate. Moreover, the Court’s ruling on this discovery dispute did not 

reference Exhibit B. Dkt. No. 628.

As to Exhibit A, the Court first notes that there is a large volume of requested 

redactions. Interrogatory No. 5 requests information regarding the LTE market. The 

Court find that the FTC’s responses to Interrogatory 5(a) and (b) are not sealable. 

Qualcomm’s motion to seal revolves around it seeking to seal “confidential agreement 

terms” described in the complaint, which were previously ordered sealed. Dkt. No. 624 at 

4; Dkt. No. 17. Subparts (a) and (b) of Interrogatory 5, on the other hand, identify all 

Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm products “that are or were included in the alleged product 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 654 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 17-cv-00220 LHK (NC) 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

market, and the time period(s) during which such products are or were included.” Dkt. No. 

624-3 at 14. Qualcomm has not established that this material is sealable. Civil L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). As to Qualcomm’s motion to seal subparts (c), (d), and (f) of Interrogatory 5

and Interrogatory 6, the Court STRIKES this request for the same reason it strike Exhibit 

B: it is superfluous to this discovery dispute.

Lastly, as to Interrogatory 13, the Court DENIES the motion to seal, for lack of 

good cause shown. Qualcomm has failed to show how the fact that its component supply 

agreements with the OEMs embody its “no license-no chips” policy merits sealing. The 

fact that Qualcomm allegedly had this policy appears throughout the record. Indeed,

Qualcomm did not object to this information being left unsealed in the complaint. See 

Dkt. No. 17 (Appendix A).

Qualcomm is ordered to refile subparts (a), (b), and (e) of Interrogatory 5, and 

Interrogatory 13 contained in Exhibit A. Any party may object to this order within 

fourteen days of being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 654 Filed 03/27/18 Page 3 of 3