Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 140 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.16-cv-06925-LHK
`
`ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 114
`
`Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal brought by Twilio, Inc. (“Twilio”).
`
`ECF No. 114. Twilio seeks to seal (1) certain portions of its Reply Claim Construction Brief, ECF
`
`No. 114-4; and (2) Exhibits P, Q, and R submitted in connection therewith, ECF Nos. 114-6, 114-
`
`8, 114-10. The material which Twilio seeks to seal is proprietary and sensitive business
`
`information belonging to TeleSign Corporation (“TeleSign”), which relates to the confidential,
`
`internal operations of its business and is not readily obtained by outside competitors. ECF No.
`
`116-1 ¶¶ 5-7. Telesign has designated this material as Highly Confidential under the parties’
`
`protective order. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
`
`Case No. 16-cv-06925-LHK
`ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 140 Filed 10/17/17 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in
`
`favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
`
`related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,
`
`1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons
`
`supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public
`
`policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons
`
`justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a
`
`vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
`
`scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435
`
`U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s
`
`embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the
`
`court to seal its records.” Id.
`
`Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
`
`of a case,” 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.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the
`
`merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The
`
`“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will
`
`result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips 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
`
`Case No. 16-cv-06925-LHK
`ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
`
`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 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 140 Filed 10/17/17 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d
`
`470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court
`
`documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,
`
`development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has
`
`adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]
`
`trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is
`
`used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
`
`competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)
`
`(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the
`
`production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the
`
`business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
`
`sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business
`
`information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
`
`In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established
`
`by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request
`
`that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or
`
`otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly
`
`tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.
`
`Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that
`
`is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each
`
`document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the
`
`document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
`
`that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).
`
`Twilio seeks to seal briefing and exhibits relating to the parties’ claim construction
`
`disputes. In patent cases, a court’s construction of the terms in a patent claim is often critical to the
`
`Case No. 16-cv-06925-LHK
`ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
`
`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 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 140 Filed 10/17/17 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`outcome of the suit. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 374 (1996)
`
`(“Victory in an infringement suit requires a finding that the patent claim covers the alleged
`
`infringer’s product or process, which in turn necessitates a determination of what the words in the
`
`claim mean.”). As such, it is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.”
`
`Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. The Court therefore applies the “compelling reasons”
`
`standard to the instant motion to file under seal.
`
`With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:
`
`
`
`Motion
`to Seal
`
`114
`
`114
`
`114
`
`114
`
`Standard
`
`Document
`
`Ruling
`
`Compelling
`Reasons
`
`Compelling
`Reasons
`
`Compelling
`Reasons
`
`Compelling
`Reasons
`
`Twilio’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief, ECF
`No. 114-4
`Exhibit P to the Eber
`Declaration ISO Twilio’s
`Reply Claim Construction
`Brief, ECF No. 114-6
`Exhibit Q to the Eber
`Declaration ISO Twilio’s
`Reply Claim Construction
`Brief, ECF No. 114-8
`Exhibit R to the Eber
`Declaration ISO Twilio’s
`Reply Claim Construction
`Brief, ECF No. 114-10
`
`GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in
`ECF No. 114-4.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 17, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`LUCY H. KOH
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No. 16-cv-06925-LHK
`ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
`
`4
`
`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
`
`