u-blox AG v. InterDigital, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 U-BLOX AG, et al, Case No.: 23-cv-0002-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION TO SEAL 14 INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al, 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 4] [16] 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to file portions of the complaint 18 under seal [Doc. No. 4]. For the following reasons, the motion to seal is DENIED. 19 “[C]ompelling reasons must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a 20 dispositive motion.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1179 (9th Cir. 21 2006). Settlement agreements are not to be sealed merely because the parties agreed to 22 keep the terms confidential. UCP Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Balsam Brands Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 23 828, 835 (N.D. Cal. 2017). In the present case, Plaintiffs argue that portions of the 24 complaint should be sealed because they “agreed [with Defendants] they would maintain 25 the confidentiality of the contract terms, the negotiation process, and would not disclose 26 them to third parties.” [Doc. No. 4 at 1]. However, the portions of the complaint Plaintiffs 27 attempt to seal do not include any official negotiation records or confidential documents 28 drafted between the Parties. The proposed redactions do not contain details specific enough 1 || to support Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding competitor advantage. Ultimately, Plaintiffs have 2 ||not demonstrated a compelling enough reason to “rebut[] the presumption of public 3 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. 4 Due to the foregoing, the motion to seal [Doc. No. 4] is hereby DENIED. Plaintiffs 5 ||have until February 13, 2023 to either file either an unredacted complaint or an amended 6 || complaint. [7] 8 It is SO ORDERED. [9] 10 Dated: February 2, 2023 (6 [11] Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge