Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 535 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ET AL PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING AMAZON AND
`TWITCH’S ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`[RE: ECF 520]
`
`Case No. 18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`[RE: ECF 142]
`
`Case No. 18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`[RE: ECF 52]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the administrative motion of Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”), and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) to file under seal
`
`Exhibit 1 (ECF 520-3) to the Declaration of Todd R. Gregorian (ECF 521-1) in Support of Amazon
`
`and Twitch’s Opposition (ECF 521) to Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify or Supplement Claim
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 535 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Construction Order (ECF 507). ECF 520. Exhibit 1 is the technical expert report of PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC’s (“PersonalWeb”) expert, Erik de la Iglesia, on infringement.
`
`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 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.
`
`Parties moving to seal documents must also 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 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 Court has reviewed Amazon and Twitch’s sealing motion and the declaration of the
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 535 Filed 10/01/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`designating party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Amazon and Twitch articulated
`
`compelling reasons to seal the requested document in its entirety. The Court’s rulings on the sealing
`
`request is set forth in the table below.
`
`ECF
`No.
`520-3
`
`Document to be Sealed
`
`Result
`
`Technical expert report of
`PersonalWeb’s expert,
`Erik de la Iglesia, on
`infringement dated August
`23, 2019.
`
`
`GRANTED as
`to the entire
`document.
`
`Reasoning
`
`PersonalWeb has designated the
`report as “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
`EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated
`Protective Order entered by the
`Court. Gregorian Decl. ¶ 2, ECF
`520-1.
`
`The Requested Sealed Material
`comprises, among other things,
`highly sensitive information about
`the technical design and operation
`of the Twitch website, including
`without limitation the
`characterization by PersonalWeb’s
`expert of Twitch’s confidential and
`proprietary source code and
`excerpts of a deposition of a Twitch
`technical witness. Both this highly
`confidential source code and the
`deposition transcript have been
`designated under the Stipulated
`Protective Order, and consist of
`sensitive information that Twitch
`maintains as confidential and does
`not reveal to the general public.
`Gregorian Decl. ¶ 3.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Amazon and Twitch’s administrative
`
`motion to seal at ECF 520. No further action is necessary.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`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
`
`