Opinion
Case No.: 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
06-23-2015
GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 464, 471, 476, 479, 484, 486, 487, 490, 492, 504)
Before the court are 10 administrative motions to seal 33 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 "unreadacted 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 court rules on the instant motions as follows:
Motion | Document to be Sealed | Result | Reason/Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Docket No.464-3 | Exhibit A to UMI'sOpposition to GSI'sMotion for Sanctions | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.471-4 | ISSI's Motion to Compelon Requests forAdmission | Page 3 SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.471-6 | Exhibit A to ISSI'sMotion to Compel onRequests for Admission | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. | |
Docket No.471-8 | Exhibit B to ISSI'sMotion to Compel onRequests for Admission | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. | |
Docket No.471-10 | Exhibit C to ISSI'sMotion to Compel onRequests for Admission | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.476-6 | Exhibit B to ISSI'sMotion to Strike "Non-Trade Secret" SchematicClaim | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation; andunredacted version doesnot "indicate, byhighlighting or other clearmethod, the portions of thedocument that have beenomitted from the redactedversion" as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). |
Docket No.479-3 | ISSI's Rule 37(b) Motion | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation; andunredacted version doesnot "indicate, byhighlighting or other clearmethod, the portions of thedocument that have beenomitted from the redactedversion" as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). |
Docket No.479-5 | Exhibit C to ISSI's Rule37(b) Motion | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.479-7 | Exhibit D to ISSI's Rule37(b) Motion | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.479-9 | Exhibit E to ISSI's Rule37(b) Motion | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.479-11 | Exhibit G to ISSI's Rule37(b) Motion | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation or unsealedportions containinformation requested tobe sealed elsewhere;unredacted version doesnot "indicate, byhighlighting or other clearmethod, the portions of thedocument that have beenomitted from the redactedversion" as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). |
Docket No.484-2 | Exhibit A to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSIto Supplement itsPrivilege Log | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation and unsealedportions containinformation requested tobe sealed elsewhere. |
Docket No.487-2 | UMI's Motion to CompelGSI's Production ofAgreements | Designations highlightedin yellow SEALED. | Sealed portions narrowlytailored to confidentialbusiness informationSEALED. |
Docket No.487-3 | Exhibit A to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSI'sProduction ofAgreements | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.490-3 | Exhibit A to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSIto Supplement itsResponses to UMI'sInterrogatories | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.490-5 | Exhibit B to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSIto Supplement itsResponses to UMI'sInterrogatories | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.490-7 | Exhibit C to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSIto Supplement itsResponses to UMI'sInterrogatories | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.490-9 | Exhibit D to UMI'sMotion to Compel GSIto Supplement itsResponses to UMI'sInterrogatories | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.492-4 | ISSI's Opposition toGSI's Motion to CompelISSI Written Discovery | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation or unsealedportions containinformation requested tobe sealed elsewhere;unredacted version doesnot "indicate, byhighlighting or other clearmethod, the portions of thedocument that have beenomitted from the redactedversion" as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). | |
Docket No.504-4 | Exhibit E to GSI'sMotion to CompelProduction of a PrivilegeLog | ISSI does not request thatany portion be filed underseal (see Docket No. 499).UMI filed no declarationin support. | |
---|---|---|---|
Docket No.504-6 | Exhibit 1 to GSI'sMotion to Compel UMIto Produce a Witness forDeposition RegardingSupplementalInterrogatory Responses | Designations highlightedin yellow SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-8 | Exhibit 2 to GSI'sMotion to Compel UMIto Produce a Witness forDeposition RegardingSupplementalInterrogatory Responses | Designations highlightedin yellow SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-10 | GSI's Motion to CompelISSI to Respond toWritten Discovery andRequests for Production | Designations highlightedin blue SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-12 | Exhibit B to GSI'sMotion to Compel ISSIto Respond to WrittenDiscovery and Requestsfor Production | Only sealed portionsNarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-14 | GSI's Letter BriefSeeking Order to CompelISSI to Produce 30(b)(6)Witness | Page 3: "Ex. F at371:14-378:9" through"See Ex. M at 293:1-294:23" SEALED. | Only sealed portionsNarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-15 | Exhibit B to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | UNSEALED. | ISSI does not request thatany portion be filed underseal (see Docket No. 499).UMI filed no declarationin support. |
---|---|---|---|
Docket No.504-17 | Exhibit F to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-18 | Exhibit G to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | SEALED. | Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-19 | Exhibit H to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-21 | Exhibit I to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-23 | Exhibit J to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | UNSEALED. | Not narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-25 | Exhibit M to GSI'sLetter Brief SeekingOrder to Compel ISSI toProduce 30(b)(6)Witness | 293:1-5; 293:17UNSEALED.Remaining designationshighlighted in yellowSEALED. | Only sealed portionsNarrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation. |
Docket No.504-27 | Exhibit N to GSI's LetterBrief Seeking Order toCompel ISSI to Produce30(b)(6) Witness | Designations highlightedin yellow SEALED. | Sealed portions narrowlytailored to confidentialbusiness informationSEALED. |
The unredacted version of the document does not "indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version" as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of judicial economy. GSI's declaration in support of ISSI's motion to seal does not reference Exhibit A, portions of which ISSI seeks to seal on GSI's behalf. See Docket No. 493. Also in the interest of judicial economy, the court grants this motion because GSI's declaration supports sealing portions of Exhibit B that are identical to the portions of Exhibit A which ISSI seeks to seal. See id.
The unredacted version of the document does not "indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version" as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of judicial economy.
GSI did not file a supporting declaration per Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
For all documents sought to be sealed at Docket No. 504, ISSI filed its declaration (Docket No. 499) in support of GSI's original motion to seal (Docket No. 486) more than four days after GSI served the motion, violating Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). However, the court considers ISSI's declaration because GSI later revised its motion to seal. See Docket No. 504.
The unredacted version of the document does not "indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version" as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). The court nevertheless considers the motion in the interest of judicial economy. The portions of the document ordered sealed are the portions that ISSI seeks to seal. It is unclear exactly what GSI seeks to seal. Both GSI's motion (Docket No. 504) and John Senechal's declaration thereto (Docket No. 504-1) refer to redacted portions on page 12 of the exhibit. Exhibit B contains highlighted designations at 5:7-8:7, but there are no redactions on page 12 or references to page 12 in GSI's proposed order. --------
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2015
/s/_________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge