VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 10 INTEL CORPORATION, [Re: ECF No. 902] 11 Defendant. 12 Before the court is VLSI’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 902. This 13 motion is related to a previous motion, ECF No. 512, which the Court denied because VLSI’s 14 request was not narrowly tailored. ECF No. 894. For the reasons described below, the 15 administrative motion is GRANTED. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 27 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 1 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 2 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 3 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 4 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 5 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 6 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 7 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 8 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 9 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 10 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 VLSI writes that the information should be sealed because disclosure “could cause 13 significant competitive and business harms to VLSI.” ECF No. 902 at 5. VLSI argues that the 14 portions are narrowly tailored. Id. 15 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 16 document. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 17 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential business 18 information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons standard.). 19 The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 20 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: [21] ECF or Exhibit Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 22 No. ECF No. 512 Excerpts of the Blue-boxed Granted, as the blue-boxed portions 23 Ex. 7 to VLSI’s April 20, 2023 portions at ¶¶ 359, reflect highly-confidential licenses Supplemental Opening Report 363–65, 387, 395– produced in this case, including royalty 24 Briefs of Mark 96, 402, 414, 422, rates and licensing terms. ECF No. Chandler 427, 442– 43, 465, 902-1 ¶¶ 9–11. Disclosure of this [25] 495, 522–23 information could cause significant 26 competitive and business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to 27 Intel and other potential license I Ex. 8 to VLSI’s | Excerpts of the | Blue-boxed Granted, as the blue-boxed portions Supplemental |May 16, 2023 | portions at § 438. reflect VLSI’s highly-confidential and 2 Briefs Supplemental proprietary damages analysis for the Report of Dr. °922 Patent Wen Decl. 4] 9-10. Public 3 William disclosure of this information could Mangione- cause significant competitive and 4 Smith business harms to VLSI, as well as unfair advantage to Intel and other 5 a4: . potential license counterparties. See 6 ECF No. 902-1 44 12-17. 7 Il. ORDER 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that VLSI’s administrative motion 9 || is granted. [10] 11 Dated: April 24, 2024 2 _filiipacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge [16] = 17 Z 18