Opinion
17-cv-05671-BLF
09-05-2023
VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL [RE: ECF NOS. 559, 563]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are two motions to seal documents submitted with Intel Corporation's (“Intel”) Daubert motions. See Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Technical Experts and Exhibits 1-5 Thereto (ECF No. 559); Intel's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 Thereto (ECF No. 563). For the reasons discussed below, the motions are 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.
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, 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).
II. DISCUSSION
The documents at issue in Intel's motions to seal are associated with the parties' Daubert motions and seek to strike or exclude certain expert opinions. These opinions concern infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue in the case, as well as available damages for the alleged infringement. These issues are “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case” and therefore the parties must provide “compelling reasons” for maintaining the documents under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc., No. C 17-5659 WHA, 2021 WL 1091512, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021).
Intel argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the material it seeks to seal because “maintaining the confidentiality of the process recipes and technical information regarding the design and operation of the accused features is critical to Intel's business.” ECF No. 559; ECF No. 563. Intel further argues that “[k]nowledge of this information by third parties would put Intel at a competitive disadvantage in future product development and in its business dealings as its competitors could incorporate that information into their own development strategies and products to gain an unfair advantage over Intel in the market.” ECF No. 559; ECF No. 563.
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
Accordingly, Intel's motions (ECF Nos. 559 and 563) are GRANTED.
| ECF No. | Document | Portion(s) to Seal | Ruling |
| 559 | Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 1-5 thereto | Green boxed portions | Granted |
| ECF No. | Document | Portion(s) to Seal | Ruling |
| 563 | Intel's Opposition to Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC's Motion to Exclude Damages Opinions of Intel's Experts and Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 thereto | Green boxed portions | Granted |
The Court notes that Intel failed to comply with Section V of this Court's Standing Order Re Civil Cases. Intel does not distinguish which documents contain each type of purportedly sealable information. Instead, Intel appears to argue that every document that it seeks to seal has “process recipes and technical information regarding the design and operation of the accused features.” ECF No. 559 at 4; ECF No. 563 at 4. This blanket assertion is not sufficiently particularized to provide compelling reasons to seal. See In re Pac. Fertility Ctr. Litig., No. 18-CV-01586-JSC, 2021 WL 1081129, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (denying request to seal where party “has not made a particularized showing with respect to any of the documents it seeks to file under seal nor has it argued that particular documents contain trade secret information.”). Nor does Intel comply with this Court's standing order, which requires:
Each [sealing] motion must include a chart . . . which includes the following four columns: (1) ECF number or exhibit number of the document sought to be sealed; (2) description or name of the document sought to be sealed; (3) portion(s) of the document to seal; and (4) reason(s) why the document should be sealed, including citation to the applicable declaration. Each separate document for which sealing is sought shall have its own row in the table.Standing Order Re Civil Cases § V.
The Court will overlook the failure for this motion. However, future failures to comply with the standing order may result in denial of a motion to seal with prejudice.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Intel's Motion to Seal at ECF No. 559 is GRANTED.
2. Intel's Motion to Seal at ECF No. 563 is GRANTED.
The parties are instructed to file redacted copies of these documents as soon as is feasible in accordance with ECF No. 607.