From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Asus Computer International v. Interdigital, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Apr 26, 2018
Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF

04-26-2018

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 191]

Before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal portions of their Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Motion for Leave to File First Amended Counterclaims and certain exhibits. ECF 191. For the reasons set forth below, the motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "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). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("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.").

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the sealing motion relates to Defendants' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. The Court has reviewed the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs and Defendants in support of sealing. Yen Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ("Yen Decl."), ECF 191-1; Lin Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ("Lin Decl."), ECF 192. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the portions sought to be sealed. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court's rulings on the sealing motion are set forth in the table below:

ECFNo.

Document to beSealed:

Result

Reasoning

191-2

Exhibit A to theSealing Declaration(Defendants' Motion toAmend SchedulingOrder and for Leave toFile First AmendedCounterclaims("Motion to Amend"))

GRANTED asto yellowhighlightedportions.

The proposed redactions at 1:25-27; 2:3-27;3:1-28; 4:4-5; 4:8-9; 4:11-22; 4:24-5:2; 5:4-10; 5:12-24; 8:10-16; 9:2; 9:11-13; and10:17-22 contain information related tohighly confidential patent licenseagreements of Plaintiffs, Defendants, andthird-party Quanta, disclosure of whichcould cause substantial economic harm toPlaintiffs, Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 3-4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.

191-4

Exhibit C to theSealing Declaration(Defendants' File FirstAmendedCounterclaims)

GRANTED asto yellowhighlightedportions.

The proposed redactions at 22:21-24; 24:1-2;24:12-26:2; 26:4-27; 27:1-12; 27:16-28:4;28:8-12; 29:23-25; 29:27; and 30:1-17contain information related to highlyconfidential patent license agreements ofPlaintiffs, Defendants, and third-partyQuanta, disclosure of which could causesubstantial economic harm to Plaintiffs,Defendants, and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.¶¶ 2, 5.

191-6

Exhibit E to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 2 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit is an excerpt of thedeposition transcript of Vincent Hong, anASUS employee. The exhibit containsconfidential terms of the patent licenseagreement between the parties as well asinformation on a confidential royaltynegotiation with a third party, disclosure ofwhich could cause competitive harm toPlaintiffs, Quanta, and the third party.Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 5.

191-7

Exhibit F to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 3 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains information onconfidential patent license agreementsbetween Defendants and third party Quanta,disclosure of which would causecompetitive harm to Defendants andQuanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.

191-8

Exhibit G to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 4 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains information onconfidential patent license agreementsbetween Defendants and third party Quanta,disclosure of which would causecompetitive harm to Defendants andQuanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.

191-9

Exhibit H to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 5 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit is an excerpt of thedeposition transcript of Vivian Yeh, anASUS employee. The exhibit containsconfidential business negotiations betweenthe parties and confidential communicationbetween Plaintiffs and Quant regardingroyalty payments, disclosure of which couldcause competitive harm to Plaintiffs andQuanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 6.

191-10

Exhibit I to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 6 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains communicationbetween employees of third party Quantaand Plaintiffs regarding confidential royaltypayments, disclosure of which could causecompetitive harm to Plaintiffs and Quanta.Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 7.

191-11

Exhibit J to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 7 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit includes confidentialbusiness negotiations between the partiesregarding their patent license agreement,disclosure of which could cause competitiveharm to Plaintiffs and Defendants. Mot. 3;Lin Decl. ¶ 8.

191-12

Exhibit K to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 8 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit consists of a letter fromDefendants' general counsel to Vivian Yeh,an employee of Plaintiffs. The lettercontains information related to confidentialbusiness negotiations between the parties,disclosure of which would lead to theviolation of the parties' patent licenseagreement and cause harm. Mot. 3; LinDecl. ¶ 9.

191-13

Exhibit L to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 9 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit includes an emailcommunication between the parties. Thecontained information relates to confidentialbusiness negotiations between the partiesregarding their royalty pay arrangement,disclosure of which would lead to violationof the parties' patent license agreement andcause harm. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 10.

191-14

Exhibit M to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 10 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains confidentialinformation related to Plaintiffs and thirdparty Quanta's royalty reports submitted toDefendants, disclosure of which would causesubstantial economic harm to Defendants andQuanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl. ¶ 15.

191-15

Exhibit N to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 11 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains confidentialinformation related to Plaintiffs and thirdparty Quanta's royalty reports submitted toDefendants, disclosure of which wouldcause substantial economic harm toDefendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.¶ 16.

191-16

Exhibit O to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 12 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The exhibit includes an emailcommunication between Plaintiffs,Defendants, and third party Quantaregarding confidential royalty payments,disclosure of which would causecompetitive harm to the parties and Quanta.Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 11.

191-17

Exhibit P to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 13 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit contains confidentialinformation related to Plaintiffs and thirdparty Quanta's royalty reports submitted toDefendants, disclosure of which wouldcause substantial economic harm toDefendants and Quanta. Mot. 4; Yen Decl.¶ 17.

191-18

Exhibit Q to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 14 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit is an excerpt of thedeposition transcript of Louise Thai, anASUS employee. The exhibit containsconfidential business communicationbetween Plaintiffs and Quanta regardingroyalty payments, disclosure of which couldcause competitive harm to the parties andQuanta. Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.

191-19

Exhibit R to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 15 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The exhibit includes an emailcommunication between Plaintiffs andQuanta regarding confidential royaltypayments, disclosure of which would causecompetitive harm to the parties and Quanta.Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 12.

191-20

Exhibit S to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 16 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The exhibit includes an emailcommunication between Plaintiffs,Defendants, and third party Quantaregarding confidential royalty payments,disclosure of which would causecompetitive harm to the parties and Quanta.Mot. 3; Lin Decl. ¶ 13.

191-21

Exhibit T to the SealingDeclaration(Ex. 20 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The entire exhibit is an excerpt of thetestimony of Ranae McElvaine, anInterdigital employee. The exhibit containsinformation relating to Defendants'confidential patent licensing agreement withQuanta, disclosure of which could causesubstantial economic harm to Defendantsand Quanta. Mot. 5; Yen Decl. ¶ 22.

191-22

Exhibit U to theSealing Declaration(Ex. 21 to Yen Decl. inSupp. of Motion toAmend)

GRANTED.

The exhibit contains a highly sensitivecommunication between Defendants andthird party Quanta. The communicationrelates to confidential financial informationregarding Defendants' patent licensingarrangement with Quanta, disclosure ofwhich could cause substantial economicharm to Defendants and Quanta. Mot. 5;Yen Decl. ¶ 23.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' sealing motion at ECF 191 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2018

/s/_________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Asus Computer International v. Interdigital, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Apr 26, 2018
Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Asus Computer International v. Interdigital, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. INTERDIGITAL, INC., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 26, 2018

Citations

Case No. 15-cv-01716-BLF (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2018)