Case 1:16-cv-25210-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2016 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`Miami Division
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-25210-DPG
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM
`HOLDINGS AMERICA CORPORATION,
`and FUJIFILM RECORDING MEDIA U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SONY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS E, G, AND H TO ITS COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Sony Corporation (“Sony”), pursuant to S.D.Fla.L.R. 5.4, hereby files this
`
`
`
`Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Confidential Exhibits E, G, and H to its Complaint. Sony
`
`states the following in support of this Motion:
`
`
`
`Sony’s Complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,137 (the “’137 patent”);
`
`6,345,779 (the “’779 patent”); 6,896,959 (the “’959 patent”); and 7,115,331 (the “’331 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) by Fujifilm Holdings Corporation’s, Fujifilm
`
`Corporation’s, Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation’s, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A.,
`
`Inc.’s Linear Tape-Open (“LTO”) products.
`
`
`
`Exhibits E, G, and H to the Complaint all contain highly confidential information
`
`regarding the technical specifications associated with LTO Ultrium generation five (“LTO-5”)
`
`and/or six (“LTO-6”) tape products. The commercial sensitivity of the information is such that
`
`public disclosure would precipitate significant harm not only to Sony’s competitive standing, but
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-25210-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2016 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`also to the health of the market for LTO products more generally, and, by extension, the public.
`
`Accordingly, Sony respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file confidential Exhibits
`
`E, G, and H to the Complaint under seal.
`
`
`
`The common law presumption of public access to judicial records “is not absolute.”
`
`Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The presumption “must be considered in the balance of
`
`competing interests,” id. (citing Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1981)),
`
`including the interest in preventing any “unfair commercial advantage,” id (citing Nixon, 435
`
`U.S. at 599). Whether the competing interest identified outweighs the presumption of openness
`
`“is vested in the first instance in the sound discretion of the trial court.” See, e.g., United States
`
`v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Newman, 696 F.2d at 803).
`
`
`
`It is respectfully submitted that, here, the risk of significant competitive harm to Sony, as
`
`a participant in the LTO standard, provides compelling justification to restrict the public
`
`disclosure of the confidential Exhibits E, G, and H to Sony’s Complaint, which disclose the
`
`contents of certain LTO format specifications. If the information in the LTO format
`
`specifications were publicly disclosed, Sony could be put at a significant disadvantage relative to
`
`competing storage media manufacturers that are not participating in the LTO format. Those
`
`manufacturers could not otherwise obtain this information.
`
`
`
`Sony respectfully requests that Exhibits E, G, and H to the Complaint remain under seal
`
`through and past the final resolution of this matter, including during any period of appeal taken
`
`by any party to this case, except as otherwise ordered by this Court or required by law.
`
`
`
`
`
`A proposed order granting this motion is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`WHEREFORE, Sony respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order authorizing the
`
`filing under seal of confidential Exhibits E, G, and H to the Complaint.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-25210-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2016 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ana Maria Barton
`Edward M. Mullins, emullins@astidavis.com
`Florida Bar No. 863920
`Ana M. Barton, abarton@astidavis.com
`Florida Bar No. 85721
`ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS
`MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A.
`1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 9th Floor
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: (305) 372-8282; Fax: (305) 372-8202
`
`Edward J. DeFranco*
`NY State Bar No. 2108561
`Joseph Milowic III*
`NY State Bar No. 4622221
`John T. McKee*
`NY State Bar No. 4906566
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson*
`California State Bar No. 177129
`Andrew J. Bramhall*
`California State Bar No. 253115
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood City, California 94065
`Tel.: (650) 801-5000
`Fax: (650) 801-5100
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-25210-DPG Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2016 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`Jeffrey S. Gerchick*
`New York State Bar No. 2978518
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`*Pro Hac Vice to be filed
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Sony Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`