Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART ADMINSTRATIVE
`MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sealing is sought of documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ opposition to
`
`Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 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 (such as this one) 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).
`
`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 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART ADMINSTRATIVE
`MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sealing is sought of documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ opposition to
`
`Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 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 (such as this one) 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).
`
`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 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
`
`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 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`the parties’ business model and strategy”). Applying these principles, the Court GRANTS in part
`
`and DENIES in part the motion as follows:
`
`
`
`Information
`
`Movant
`
`Disposition
`
`Reasons
`
`Dkt. No. 900-1 ¶ 15
`
`-16
`
`Qualcomm
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Id. ¶ 16 n.22-23
`
`
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`2
`
`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 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains confidential licensing figures.
`
`Contains references to business strategies.
`
`Contains statement that Qualcomm’s
`policy was “very public.”
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains confidential licensing figures.
`
`Describes U.S. cellphone network
`standards generally.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`Contains confidential business
`information and license negotiations.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 19, n.30
`
`Id. ¶ 23, n.37-43,
`
`Figure 69
`
`Id. ¶ 28, n.48-52
`
`Id. ¶ 29, n.53-54
`
`Id. ¶ 30, n.55
`
`Id. ¶ 31, n.57, 59-60
`
`Id. ¶ 32, n.62, 64-68
`
`Id. ¶ 33, n.69-70
`
`Id. ¶ 35, n.72
`
`Id. ¶ 36, n.77
`
`Id. ¶ 37 n.78-80
`
`Id. ¶ 38, n.81-86
`
`Id. ¶ 39, n.88
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 41
`
`Motorola
`
`Id. ¶ 42, n.93
`
`Qualcomm
`
`Id. ¶ 42, n.97
`
`Id. ¶ 45, n.100-104
`
`Id. ¶ 46, n.107
`
`Id. ¶ 48, n.114
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`
`Sealed
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Id. ¶ 49, n.119
`
`Id. ¶ 50 n.121
`
`Id. ¶ 56, n.145-147
`
`Id. ¶ 57, n.148-152
`
`Id. ¶ 58, n.153-156
`
`Id. ¶¶ 59-60, n.157-
`
`161
`
`Id. ¶ 72, n.171
`
`Id. ¶ 74, n.172
`
`Id. ¶ 77, n.175
`
`Id. ¶ 77, n.176-177
`
`Id. ¶ 78, n.178, 180-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Contains no confidential information.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains references to business strategies.
`
`184
`
`Qualcomm &
`Motorola
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`
`Id. ¶ 79, n.185
`
`Motorola
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential business figures.
`
`Id. ¶ 80, n.186-187 Qualcomm
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains references to business strategies.
`
`Id. ¶ 85, n.194
`
`Id. ¶ 87, n.195
`
`
`
`
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains only a Qualcomm employee
`saying he is unaware of other companies
`with similar licensing practices.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Id. ¶ 89, n.197-199,
`
`201-204
`
`Id. ¶ 91, n.205-209
`
`Id. ¶ 95, n.213
`
`Id. ¶ 95, n.215
`
`Id. ¶ 96, n.220-222
`
`Qualcomm
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`4
`
`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 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains references to business strategies.
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`Contains details from licensing
`negotiations.
`Contains reference to publicly declared
`Stand Essential Patent market share.
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains no confidential business
`information.
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential licensing figures.
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains confidential licensing figures.
`
`Contains confidential agreement figures.
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential agreement figures.
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed
`
`5
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 100, n.232
`
`Id. ¶ 100, n.233-244
`
`Id. ¶ 101, n.235,
`
`238
`
`Id. ¶ 101, n.236-238
`
`Id. ¶ 102, n.239
`
`Id. ¶ 102, n.240
`
`Id. ¶ 104, n.241
`
`Id. ¶ 105, n.242-244
`
`Id. ¶ 107, n.249,
`
`251
`
`Id. ¶ 109, n.254
`
`Id. ¶ 110, n.255
`
`Id. ¶ 112, n.256
`
`Id. ¶ 113, n.258
`
`Id. ¶ 116, n.260-263
`
`Id. ¶ 118, n.271-274
`
`Id. ¶ 119, n.277
`
`Id. ¶¶ 120-122,
`
`n.278-283
`
`Id. ¶ 123, n.284
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 124
`
`Id. ¶ 125, n.286,
`
`Table 1
`
`Id. ¶ 130, n.290
`
`Id. ¶ 131, n.291
`
`Id. ¶ 132-33
`
`Id. ¶ 134
`
`Id. ¶ 139, n.309-311
`
`Id. ¶ 140, n.315-317
`
`Id. ¶ 143, n.324
`
`Id. ¶ 146, n.335
`
`Id. ¶ 150, n.347
`
`Dkt. No. 900-2
`¶ 41: “second
`sentence, the phrase
`immediately
`following ‘he
`describes a’ and
`ending at the
`comma before the
`words ‘and claims
`that Apple’s’”
`
`Id. ¶ 246 n.536
`Id. ¶ 252 n.550:
`“four numerical
`dollar and
`percentage values”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential agreement figures.
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Sealed
`
`Sealed
`
`Not Sealed
`
`Contains confidential negotiation details.
`
`Contains confidential agreement figures.
`
`Only reason provided is: “Referencing or
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly
`Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only
`Documents.”
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`
`Not Sealed Same.
`Contains confidential technological
`information.
`
`Sealed
`
`Samsung
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains Samsung’s internal assessment
`of its royalty obligations and negotiation
`strategy.
`
`Motorola
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential business strategies.
`
`Samsung
`
`Sealed
`
`Contains confidential figures regarding a
`potential investment in a chipset joint
`venture.
`
`Qualcomm also included a chart with over 250 proposed redactions for Docket Number
`
`900-2. With few exceptions, the proposed reasoning for each redaction is “Referencing or
`
`Quoting Previously Marked Highly Confidential Attorney’s Eyes Only Documents” or
`
`“Referencing or Quoting Expert Reports which were previously marked as Highly Confidential
`
`6
`
`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 922 Filed 02/23/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`Attorneys Eyes Only.” That is insufficient under Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Thus, Qualcomm’s
`
`motion to have that material sealed is DENIED.
`
`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. Plaintiffs
`
`shall file partially redacted exhibits consistent with this Order within 14 days of the date of this
`
`Order.
`
`
`
`This Order disposes of Docket Number 900.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
`United States District Judge
`
`7
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
