Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 124 Filed 10/15/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-06185-HSG
`
`ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 106
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc.’s administrative motion to file under
`
`seal portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of Bradford C.
`
`Schulz in support of the Motion to Supplement, as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of
`
`Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety. See Dkt. No. 106. For the reasons articulated below, the
`
`Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
`
`documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard
`
`derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
`
`judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
`
`1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
`
`Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the
`
`party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling
`
`reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
`
`public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial
`
`process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted).
`
`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 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 124 Filed 10/15/19 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
`
`However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the same
`
`strong presumption of access. See id. at 1179. Because such records “are often unrelated, or only
`
`tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower
`
`“good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179–80 (quotations
`
`omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will
`
`result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307
`
`F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm,
`
`unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus.,
`
`Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Because the documents Plaintiff seeks to seal relate to a non-dispositive motion, the Court
`
`will apply the lower good cause standard. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to the
`
`Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety, as well as the portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to
`
`Supplement the Record and the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in support of the Motion to
`
`Supplement that discuss those exhibits. See Dkt. No. 106. The only basis Plaintiff proffers for
`
`sealing is that the exhibits “contain information that has been designated “RESTRICTED –
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by Defendant AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”). See
`
`id. at 1. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion repeats this same explanation. See Dkt.
`
`No. 106-1, ¶¶ 2–5. Defendant did not file a declaration establishing that Exhibits 1 and 2, and the
`
`motion and declaration that refer to them, are sealable within four days of Plaintiff’s motion as
`
`required under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Instead, as part of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, the
`
`parties included a document styled “Joint Stipulation regarding Administrative Motion for Filing
`
`under Seal,” which states that the parties agree to seal these documents. See Dkt. No. 106-2.
`
`The Court finds that Plaintiff’s cursory justification that the documents were designated
`
`confidential and the parties “joint stipulation” agreeing to seal the documents do not adequately
`
`establish a “particularized showing” of “specific prejudice or harm.” See Phillips, 307 F.3d at
`
`1210–11 (quotation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A)
`
`explains, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 124 Filed 10/15/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
`
`sealable.” “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish
`
`coverage under the stipulated 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). Thus, Plaintiff’s
`
`motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, and the Court finds no basis to seal the
`
`requested documents.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2),
`
`Plaintiff may file unredacted versions of the motion, declaration, and exhibits, or Plaintiff may file
`
`a new motion to seal, within seven days of this order according to the requirements discussed
`
`above.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: 10/15/2019
`
`______________________________________
`
`HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
`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
`
`