Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 90 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)
`robert.mccauley@finnegan.com
`Jacob A. Schroeder (SBN 264717)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone:
`(650) 849-6600
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-6666
`
`Gerald F. Ivey (pro hac vice)
`Smith R. Brittingham IV (pro hac vice)
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer (pro hac vice)
`John M. Williamson (pro hac vice)
`Rajeev Gupta (pro hac vice)
`Aidan C. Skoyles (pro hac vice)
`Cecilia Sanabria (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone:
`(202) 408-4000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 408-4400
`
`Stephen E. Kabakoff (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3500 SunTrust Plaza
`303 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30308-3263
`Telephone:
`(404) 653- 6400
`Facsimile:
`(404) 653-6444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`OPENTV, INC., NAGRAVISION S.A., and
`NAGRA FRANCE S.A.S.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO PARTIALLY FILE
`UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS’
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE RELIANCE
`ON CERTAIN INVENTION DATES
`AND TO STRIKE CERTAIN
`ALLEGATIONS AND CERTAIN
`SUPPORTING EXHIBIT
`
`
`ADMIN. MTN TO FUS
`CASE NO. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 90 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b) and (d), Plaintiffs OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision
`
`S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S. (collectively “OpenTV”) hereby move the Court for leave to partially
`
`file under seal (1) portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Reliance on
`
`Certain Invention Dates and to Strike Certain Allegations (“OpenTV’s Opposition ”), and (2)
`
`portions of Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Elizabeth A. Niemeyer in Support of OpenTV’s
`
`Opposition (“Niemeyer Exhibit 4”).
`
`For the same reasons set forth in OpenTV’s recently filed Administrative Motion to File
`
`Under Seal (D.I. 86), OpenTV hereby moves to file under seal portions of OpenTV’s Opposition and
`
`of Niemeyer Exhibit 4 that disclose OpenTV confidential and proprietary information. OpenTV is
`
`lodging herewith highlighted versions of OpenTV’s Opposition and of Niemeyer Exhibit 4, which
`
`highlight the portions OpenTV requests be sealed, and OpenTV is also publicly filing corresponding
`
`redacted versions of OpenTV’s Opposition and of Niemeyer Exhibit 4 along with this motion to
`
`partially seal.
`
`This motion to seal by OpenTV is supported by a concurrently filed Declaration of William
`
`Goldman (“Goldman Declaration”). As explained in the Goldman Declaration, OpenTV’s
`
`Opposition and Niemeyer Exhibit 4 lodged herewith disclose a confidential and proprietary
`
`development date for the invention that led to U.S. Patent No. 7,725,740 (“the ’740 patent”). As
`
`attested in the Goldman Declaration, the development date for the invention that led to ’740 patent is
`
`confidential and proprietary information belonging to OpenTV that concerns the domain of security
`
`modules. Disclosure of the date when such a security system was developed and potentially
`
`incorporated into certain OpenTV’s products, and related information, would provide would-be
`
`hackers with information about the security protocols present (or not present) in certain OpenTV
`
`products that would otherwise remain secret. Such disclosure would weaken the strong security
`
`protocols that OpenTV has worked to develop and market to its customers as part of its competitive
`
`advantage over its competitors in the marketplace. Goldman Decl. ¶ 5.
`
`Although there is a general presumption of public access to dispositive motions (and papers
`
`and exhibits supporting them), e.g., Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d
`
`1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002), that presumption “do[es] not apply with equal force to non-dispositive
`ADMIN. MTN TO FUS
`CASE NO. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 90 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`materials.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
`
`Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213). “The application of a strong presumption of access to sealed records, not
`
`directly relevant to the merits of the case, would eviscerate the broad power of the district court to
`
`fashion protective orders.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “In short, ‘good cause’ suffices to
`
`warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to nondispositive motions.”
`
`Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see
`
`also Kamakana, 447 F.3d. at 1180 (same, citing Foltz); see also OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case
`
`No. 14-cv-01622-HSG, Order Granting Administrative Motion to Seal (D.I. 168).
`
`Here, OpenTV submits OpenTV’s Opposition and Niemeyer Exhibit 4 in opposition to
`
`Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Reliance on Certain Invention Dates and to Strike Certain
`
`Allegations (D.I. 85), addressing a non-dispositive issue, and the Goldman Declaration satisfies the
`
`good cause requirement to seal the portions of OpenTV’s Opposition and of Niemeyer Exhibit 4
`requested by OpenTV here and in the Goldman Declaration.1 See In re Wachovia Corp. “Pick a
`Payment” Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 3:09-cv-02015-RS-PSG,
`
`2013 WL 6200008, *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013) (granting motion to seal under Civil L.R. 79-5,
`
`citing declaration attesting to the risk of “competitive disadvantage” if a motion to seal were not
`
`granted). OpenTV’s highlights/redactions of the opposition and exhibit are also narrowly tailored to
`
`seek sealing of only sealable material per Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Accordingly, OpenTV respectfully
`
`requests that its motion to partially seal OpenTV’s Opposition and corresponding Niemeyer Exhibit
`
`4 be granted.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: April 27, 2016
`
`
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Niemeyer
`Elizabeth A. Niemeyer
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and
`Nagra France S.A.S
`
`
`
`
`1 The Goldman Declaration also satisfies the more demanding standard for dispositive motions.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`ADMIN. MTN TO FUS
`CASE NO. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD (NMC)
`
`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