Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 898 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation
`
`Case No. 17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter comes before the Court upon an administrative motion to consider whether
`
`another party’s material should be sealed. (Dkt. No. 886.) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.5(f),
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated and Motorola Mobility LLC submitted statements in support of sealing
`
`portions of the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 889, 891.) For the reasons stated below, the
`
`motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
`
`There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.
`
`Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Courts generally apply a “compelling
`
`reasons” standard when considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in
`
`favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
`
`(9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are
`
`“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
`
`Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with
`
`“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
`
`access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (cleaned
`
`up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) “will
`
`suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180.
`
`A complaint is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 898 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099, because it forms “the foundation of the lawsuit.” In re Yahoo! Inc.
`
`Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2018 WL 9651897, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Jan. 3, 2018) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies.
`
`Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “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).
`
`Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document because that
`
`document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating Party”) the
`
`Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
`
`Should Be Sealed. Civil L. R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or portions
`
`thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating
`
`Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the applicable
`
`legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Civil L. R. 79-5(c)(1), (f).
`
`That statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii)
`
`the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is
`
`not sufficient. Civil L. R. 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the
`
`unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id.
`
`A designation of “confidential” or “confidential – attorneys’ eyes only” is not sufficient to
`
`establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the
`
`parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish coverage under the protective order. See
`
`Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the
`
`document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is
`
`considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL
`
`482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). However, courts have found that “confidential business
`
`information” in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing
`
`negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re
`
`Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8,
`
`2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 898 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`the parties’ business model and strategy”). Applying these principles, the Court GRANTS in part
`
`and DENIES in part the motion as follows:
`
`
`
`Allegation
`
`Movant
`
`Disposition
`
`Reasons
`
`Dkt. No. 886-2 ¶ 76 Qualcomm Sealable
`
`Contains information regarding financial
`
`terms of licensing agreements
`
`Id. ¶ 182; lines
`
`Qualcomm Sealable
`
`Contains confidential information regarding
`
`44:26 – 45:3
`
`business strategies
`
`Id. ¶ 182; lines 45:5
`
`
`
`Not Sealable No Party submitted the statement or
`
`– 45:7
`
`declaration required by L.R. 79-5(f).
`
`Id. ¶ 197 – 198
`
`Qualcomm Sealable
`
`Contains details of specific license
`
`Id. ¶ 204
`
`Motorola
`
`Sealable
`
`Contains details of business and pricing
`
`agreements and licensing negotiations
`
`strategies
`
`
`
`
`
`Not Sealable No Party submitted the statement or
`
`declaration required by L.R. 79-5(f).
`
`Not Sealable Same
`
`Id. ¶ 205
`
`Id. ¶ 207
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs shall file a partially redacted complaint consistent with this Order within 7 days
`
`of the date of this Order.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the
`
`administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`This Order disposes of Docket No. 886.
`
`Dated: August 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`