Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 137 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`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 GRANTING RENEWED
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`SEAL
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 131
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc.’s renewed administrative motion to
`
`14
`
`file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of
`
`15
`
`Bradford C. Schulz in support of the Motion to Supplement, as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the
`
`16
`
`Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety. See Dkt. No. 131. For the reasons articulated
`
`17
`
`below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
`
`20
`
`documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard
`
`21
`
`derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
`
`22
`
`judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
`
`23
`
`1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
`
`24
`
`Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the
`
`25
`
`party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling
`
`26
`
`reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
`
`27
`
`public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial
`
`28
`
`process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted).
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 137 Filed 11/05/19 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 that 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 two exhibits. See Dkt. No. 131; see also Dkt. No. 106.
`
`The Court had previously denied the motion to seal these documents because the parties failed to
`
`make the requisite showing of prejudice or harm. See Dkt. No. 124 at 2–3 (citing Phillips, 307
`
`F.3d at 1210–11). Instead, the parties relied on their designation of the material as “RESTRICTED
`
`– ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” See id.
`
`However, in response to the renewed motion, Defendant AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC filed a declaration detailing that these documents contain confidential business and
`
`proprietary information relating to the operations of non-party Advanced Ground Information
`
`Systems, Inc. (“AGIS Inc.”). See Dkt. No. 136. Exhibits 1 and 2 are deposition transcripts taken
`
`in connection with Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-
`
`80651-DMM (S.D. Fl.), and contain information about AGIS Inc.’s technology, business
`
`strategies, and classified dealings with the government and military, which if public, would place
`
`AGIS Inc. in financial risk and give competitors an unfair advantage. Id. at ¶¶ 4–6.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the parties have provided good cause for sealing Exhibits
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 137 Filed 11/05/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`1 and 2 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, as indicated in the table below. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-
`
`CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com,
`
`LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014).
`
`Document
`
`Ruling
`
`Docket Number
`Public/(Sealed)
`
`106-8; 106-9; 131-
`7; and 131-8;
`
`106-5; 131-4
`
`Portions Sought
`to be Sealed
`Plaintiff’s Renewed Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 131
`Exhibits 1–2 to the to the
`Entire Exhibits
`GRANTED:
`Declaration of Bradford
`confidential business
`C. Schulz filed in support
`information.
`of Plaintiff’s Motion to
`Supplement the Record
`Excerpts of Plaintiff’s
`Motion to Supplement
`the Record
`
`Pages and lines:
`1:9–11; 2:20–3:3,
`& n.1; 4:8–12,
`4:14–16; 4:26–
`5:5; 5:16–19;
`5:21.
`Pages and lines:
`1:25–27; 2:5–7.
`
`GRANTED:
`confidential business
`information.
`
`GRANTED:
`confidential business
`information.
`
`106-7; 131-6
`
`Excerpts of the
`Declaration of Bradford
`C. Schulz filed in support
`of the Motion to
`Supplement the Record
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), the
`
`documents identified above will remain under seal.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: 11/5/2019
`
`______________________________________
`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
`
`