In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER ON RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 9 UNDER SEAL This Document Relates To: 10 Re: Dkt. No. 860 ALL ACTIONS [11] 12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint renewed administrative motion to file under 13 seal. The Court previously granted in part and denied in part the parties’ administrative motions 14 to file under seal. Dkt. No. 789. Having carefully considered the pending motion and supporting 15 declarations, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 9 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 10 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 1210–11 (9th 11 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 12 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 13 F.2d 470 , 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The Court previously denied in part numerous administrative motions to file under seal, 16 primarily because the parties did not narrowly tailor their sealing requests to redact only 17 confidential or proprietary business information, and the requests sought to redact substantial 18 volumes of information otherwise unredacted elsewhere. Dkt. No. 789 at 3. The Court directed 19 the parties to file any renewed motions to seal within fourteen days. Id. at 6. 20 The parties have publicly refiled documents which they no longer seek to seal. Dkt. No. 21 858. However, the parties have not publicly refiled Exhibits 3, 6, 18, 19, and 28 to the Declaration 22 of Daniel A. Apgar (“Apgar Declaration”), nor have the parties submitted renewed requests to seal 23 those exhibits. Given the substantial volume of documents, the Court will afford the parties one 24 more opportunity to file a renewed motion to seal those exhibits, should the parties still seek to do 25 so. Otherwise, the parties should file unredacted versions of those exhibits. 26 Turning to the renewed sealing requests, the parties have narrowly tailored the redactions 27 to confidential and proprietary business information. The Court finds good cause to grant the 1 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency 2 Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex 3 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 4 2014). 5 However, the parties still fail to narrowly tailor the sealing request for the Declaration of 6 Jonathan M. Sharret (“Sharret Declaration”). Dkt. No. 860-11. With respect to third-party 7 Google’s proposed redactions in paragraphs 52 and 53, the Court finds Google has established 8 good cause to seal those narrowly tailored redacted portions. However, the public version 9 contains redactions pertaining to both HTC and Microsoft, Dkt. No. 860-11 ¶¶ 6–44 (HTC), 61–95 10 (Microsoft), yet neither party’s supporting declaration explains why the information should be 11 redacted. See Dkt. Nos. 860-2, 860-3. Further, the redactions pertaining to HTC and Microsoft 12 are substantially overbroad. For example, the parties seek to redact procedural history, including 13 information publicly available on the docket. The Court does not find that procedural history in 14 this case constitutes confidential and proprietary business information so as to warrant sealing, 15 especially in the absence of a particularized showing of how disclosure would lead to specific 16 harm or prejudice. 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 18 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed HTC’s Requests to Seal (Supporting Decl. Dkt. No. 860-2) 19 862-9, 862-11, Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 10, 24, 34–40, Redacted portions GRANTED 863-1, 863-3, 863- 46–48 to the Declaration of Sean identified in 20 5, 863-7, 863-9, M. McCarthy ISO Philips’ public filing 863-11 / (862-10, Motion for Leave to Amend 21 862-12, 863-2, 863-4, 863-6, 86322 8, 863-10, 863-12) 865-3, 864-5, 864- Exhibits 2, 112, 119 to the Redacted portions GRANTED 23 7 / (866-1, 864-6, Declaration of Jonathan M. identified in 864-8) Sharret ISO Philips’ Motion for public filing 24 Leave to Amend Acer’s Requests to Seal (Supporting Decl. Dkt. No. 860-1) [25] 860-7, 860-9 / Exhibits 5 and 16 to the Redacted portions GRANTED (860-8, 860-10) Declaration of Daniel A. Apgar in public filing [26] ISO Philips’ Motion for Leave to Amend [27] 868-1 / (868-2) Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Redacted portions GRANTED Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling 1 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed Microsoft’s Requests to Seal (Supporting Decl. Dkt. No. 860-3) 2 861-3, 861-5, 861- Exhibits 7, 8, 11, 13, 22, 23, 24, Redacted portions GRANTED 7, 861-9, 862-1, and 30 to the Declaration of in public filing 3 862-3, 862-5, 862- Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia ISO 7 / (861-4, 861-6, Philips’ Motion for Leave to 4 861-8, 861-10, Amend 862-2, 862-4, 8625 6, 862-8) 6 869-1 / (868-3) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Redacted portions GRANTED Jonathan M. Sharret ISO Philips’ in public filing 7 Motion for Leave to Amend 864-3, 861-1 / Exhibits C and D to the Redacted portions GRANTED 8 (864-4, 861-2) Declaration of Patrick J. in public filing McKeever ISO Defendants’ 9 Opposition ASUS’s Requests to Seal (Supporting Decl. Dkt. No. 860-5) [10] 867-1 / (866-2) Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Redacted portions GRANTED Jonathan M. Sharret ISO Philips’ in public filing [11] Motion for Leave to Amend Google’s Requests to Seal (Supporting Decl. Dkt. No. 860-4) [12] 860-11/ 538-37 Declaration of Jonathan M. Redacted portions GRANTED as to Sharret ISO Philips’ Motion for in public filing Google’s proposed [13] Leave to Amend redactions in paragraphs 52 and [15] DENIED as to the remaining [16] redactions: not narrowly tailored [17] 865-3, 868-1, 867- Exhibits 2–4 to the Declaration Redacted portions GRANTED 18 1 / (866-1, 868-2, of Jonathan M. Sharret ISO in public filing 866-2) Philips’ Motion for Leave to 19 Amend 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the 22 joint renewed administrative motion to file under seal. The Court DENIES sealing as to the 23 Sharret Declaration, Dkt. No. 860-11, but GRANTS as to the remaining documents. Pursuant to 24 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are 25 granted will remain under seal. 26 The Court will grant the parties one more opportunity to file a renewed motion to seal for 27 the Sharret Declaration and Exhibits 3, 6, 18, 19, and 28 to the Apgar Declaration. The Court will 1 according to the requirements discussed above. If the parties no longer seek to seal those 2 || documents, then the parties are directed to file public, unredacted versions of the documents 3 || within seven days (7) from the date of this order (the exception being Google’s proposed 4 || redactions in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the Sharret Declaration). The Court expects the parties will 5 use their best objective judgment to file a motion that is narrowly tailored, properly supported by 6 || declarations, and satisfies the requisite standards. Google need not file another supporting 7 declaration. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: 11/13/2019 10 7 Haupurred Lh I. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. I United States District Judge [16] = 17 Z 18