Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL., PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING
`MOTIONS AT ECF 314, ECF 341, AND
`ECF 349
`
`[Re: ECF 314, 341, 349]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are PesonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications LLC
`
`(collectively, “PersonalWeb”) and Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.’s
`
`(collectively “Amazon”) administrative motions to file under seal portions of their briefs and
`
`exhibits in connection with Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. ECF 314, 341, 349. For
`
`the reasons stated below, the parties’ motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in regard to
`
`one item.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
`
`and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
`
`U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
`
`presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
`
`Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
`
`motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
`
`of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 2 of 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
`
`access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
`
`1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
`
`However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
`
`mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
`
`their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the
`
`merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto
`
`Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need
`
`for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are
`
`often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving
`
`to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
`
`Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
`
`standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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 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). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery
`
`may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents
`
`sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties
`
`to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine
`
`whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference
`
`to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as
`
`confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).
`
`In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
`
`documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
`
`79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
`
`“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
`
`the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the
`
`submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
`
`material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
`
`sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
`
`highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the
`
`redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
`
`Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
`
`79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The parties request sealing of portions of their briefs and exhibits in connection with
`
`Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. Because these documents are “more than tangentially
`
`related to the underlying cause of action,” the Court finds that the compelling reasons standard
`
`applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating
`
`parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling
`
`reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are
`
`generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables
`
`below.
`
`A. ECF 314 re Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Amazon seek to seal Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Saina S. Shamilov, ECF 314-3.
`
`Exhibit 9 contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’ supplemental infringement contentions that reproduce
`
`confidential and proprietary source code for Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (“S3”). Ranganath
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 2-3 at ECF 314-1. Disclosure of such information would cause harm to Defendants.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal this document in its entirety. The motion
`
`to seal at ECF 314 is GRANTED.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`B. ECF 341 re PersonalWeb’s Opposition
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`341-11 Exhibit 4 to the Monroe
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`314-12 Exhibit 12 to the Monroe
`Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`314-13 Exhibit 13A to the
`Monroe Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`314-14 Exhibit 13B to the
`Monroe Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`314-15 Exhibit 13C to the
`Monroe Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`314-16 Exhibit 13D to the
`Monroe Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`4
`
`Contains confidential information
`related to the function of S3.
`Hedrick Decl. ¶ 3 at ECF 341-1.
`Disclosure of such information
`would cause harm to Defendants.
`
`Contains confidential information
`related to Amazon’s business
`strategy. Hedrick Decl. ¶ 3 at
`ECF 341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code for
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Hedrick Decl. ¶ 5 at ECF
`341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code for
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Hedrick Decl. ¶ 5 at ECF
`341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code for
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Hedrick Decl. ¶ 5 at ECF
`341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code 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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`314-17 Exhibit 13E to the
`Monroe Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`341-18 PersonalWeb’s
`opposition to Amazon’s
`motion for summary
`judgment
`
`GRANTED as to
`selected portions.
`
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Hedrick Decl. ¶ 5 at ECF
`341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code for
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Hedrick Decl. ¶ 5 at ECF
`341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`The selected portions quote or
`summarize from other documents
`to be sealed pursuant to this Order.
`
`C. ECF 349 re Amazon’s Reply
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`349-4 Amazon’s reply
`
`GRANTED as to
`selected portions.
`
`349-6 Exhibit 21 to the
`Shamilov Declaration
`
`GRANTED as to
`selected portions.
`
`349-8 Exhibit 22 to the
`Shamilov Declaration
`
`GRANTED as to
`selected portions.
`
`349-9 Exhibit 24 to the
`Shamilov Declaration
`
`DENIED without
`prejudice.
`
`5
`
`The selected portions quote or
`summarize from other documents
`to be sealed pursuant to this Order.
`
`Contains confidential information
`related to the function of S3.
`Ranganath Decl. ¶ 4 at ECF 341-4.
`Disclosure of such information
`would cause harm to Defendants.
`
`Contains confidential information
`related to Amazon’s business
`strategy. Ranganath Decl. ¶ 4 at
`ECF 341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`The exhibit contains a license
`agreement between
`PersonalWeb’s predecessor-in-
`interest to Level 3’s predecessor-
`in-interest. Amazon represents
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 361 Filed 02/07/19 Page 6 of 6
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`349-10 Exhibit 25 to the
`Shamilov Declaration
`
`GRANTED.
`
`that the exhibit is “highly
`confidential” pursuant to the
`stipulated protective order in this
`case. Ranganath Decl. ¶ 3.
`However, the mere conclusory
`statement that information is
`confidential does not provide
`sufficient reasons that justify
`sealing.
`
`Contains excerpts of Plaintiffs’
`infringement contentions that
`reproduce confidential and
`proprietary source code for
`Amazon’s Simple Storage Service
`(“S3”). Ranganath Decl. ¶ 4 at
`ECF 341-1. Disclosure of such
`information would cause harm to
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ motions at ECF 314, 341, and 349 are GRANTED
`
`in part and DENIED without prejudice in part. The Court is mindful that Exhibit 24 to the
`
`Shamilov Declaration may contain sealable material and that PersonalWeb may consider the
`
`exhibit to be sealable. As such, the Court denies the motion to seal Exhibit 24 without prejudice
`
`and will allow the parties to submit a declaration in support of sealing within four (4) days of the
`
`date of this order. The declaration must articulate compelling reasons to seal the exhibit. If no
`
`declaration is filed within four (4) days of the date of this order, Amazon must file an unredacted
`
`document into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of
`
`this order.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 7, 2019
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`