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. |
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