From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. v. Mobileiron, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 12, 2015
Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

06-12-2015

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC., Plaintiffs, v. MOBILEIRON, INC., Defendant.


OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 314, 316, 317, 330, 333, 340, 344)

Before the court are seven administrative motions to seal 49 documents. "Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.

Kamakana v. City & County 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)).

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Id. 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." Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 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.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

See id. at 1180.

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Id.

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).

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

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)." "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(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).

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motionto Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

314

Good's Reply to its Motionto Strike Portions ofDefendant's Expert ReportRegarding Defendant'sInfringementCounterclaims

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 314-4SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

316

Good's Opposition toMobileIron's Motion toExclude certain opinions ofGood's experts

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 316-5SEALED EXCEPT pages 2:18-19, 15:13-16, 19:19-20UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

316

Declaration of Ira Cook

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness information.

316

Exhibit 1

SEALED EXCEPT page 1 atDocket No. 316-8 UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

316

Exhibit 2

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.



316

Exhibit 3

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness information.

316

Exhibit 4

Pages 20:16-21:23 at DocketNo. 316-11 SEALED;Page 28:22-25 at DocketNo. 316-11 SEALED;pages 42:18-44:2 at DocketNo. 316-11 SEALED; page 44:4,44:14 at Docket No. 316-11SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

316

Exhibit 5

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

316

Exhibit 6

Page 28:11-12 at DocketNo. 316-13 SEALED;Page 29:14-25 at DocketNo. 316-13 SEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

MobileIron's Oppositionto Good TechnologyPlaintiffs' Motion toexclude opinions ofMobileIron's proposedexperts Richard Eichmann,Earl Sacerdoti, StephenGray and Peter Reiher

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 317-5SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 1

¶ 43, 47-48, 52(b), 59, 61-63,69-76, 85 and 89-90 at DocketNo. 317-6 SEALED; footnote 17at Docket No. 317-6 SEALED;the table after ¶ 58, the tableafter ¶ 62 and the table after ¶ 88at Docket No. 317-6 SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 3

Page 33:2 at Docket No. 317-7SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 4

SEALED EXCEPT page 1,¶¶ 45-64 at Docket No. 317-7UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.



317

Exhibit 5

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness information.

317

Exhibit 6

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 7

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 8

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317 317 317

Exhibit 9

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

Exhibit 10

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

Exhibit 11

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 12

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 13

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 14

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 15

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 16

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 17

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).



317

Exhibit 18

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 19

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 20

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 21

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

317

Exhibit 22

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 23

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

317

Exhibit 24

All monetary values at DocketNo. 317-9 SEALED; ¶¶ 112-113at Docket No. 317-9 SEALED;all other requests UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

317

Exhibit 25

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

317

Exhibit 26

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

317

Exhibit 28

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

317

Exhibit 33

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness information.



317

Exhibit 34

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

330

MobileIron's Reply inSupport of Motion toExclude the Opinions andTestimony of Good'sExperts, Mr. RoyWeinsteinand Dr. Hugh Smith

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 330-5SEALED EXCEPT pages 7:21,8:1, 15:13-14 UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

330

Exhibit 25

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 330-6SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

330

Exhibit 26

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness information.

330

Exhibit 27

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

330

Exhibit 28

Section titled "Good LicenseAgreements" on pages 9-10 atDocket No. 330-9 SEALED; allother requests UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

333

Plaintiff GoodTechnology Corporationand Good TechnologySoftware, Inc.'s Reply inSupport of Motion toExclude Opinions ofMobileIron's ProposedExperts Richard Eichmann,Earl Sacerdoti, StephenGray and Peter Reiher

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

333

Exhibit 2

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

340

Exhibit A

Designations highlighted inyellow at Docket No. 340-3SEALED EXCEPT lines 7:21,8:1, 15:13-14 UNSEALED.

Sealed consistentwith ruling re DocketNo. 330-5.



340

Exhibit B

Page 38, lines 8, 19, 23 atDocket No. 340-5 SEALED;Page 67, line 15 at DocketNo. 340-5 SEALED; page 98,lines 9, 13 at Docket No. 340-5SEALED; page 100, lines 16, 20at Docket No. 340-5 SEALED;Page 153, line 1 at DocketNo. 340-5 SEALED.

Only portionspreviously sealed atDocket No. 293narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.As to pages 173-175,no declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

344

Exhibit D

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

344

Exhibit E

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).


SO ORDERED. Dated: June 12, 2015

Page 29:26-28 could not be considered because it was not submitted to the court.
--------

/s/_________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. v. Mobileiron, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 12, 2015
Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. v. Mobileiron, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC.…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2015

Citations

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2015)