In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part sealing motions, requiring narrower redactions or renewed motions.
Philips, ASUS, the other parties, and the public’s access to court filings were affected. Some documents and portions remained sealed, while other materials had to be filed publicly or addressed through renewed sealing motions.
What happened
In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation involved four administrative motions to seal documents connected to Philips’ motion to amend infringement contentions and ASUS’ motion to strike. The parties sought to keep various filings and exhibits from public view because they contained confidential business information.
The court applied a lower standard requiring a specific showing of likely harm because the documents concerned nondispositive motions. It allowed some narrowly supported redactions but rejected requests that were too broad, lacked supporting declarations, or covered information the designating party had treated as nonconfidential or that was already public.
Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part Docket Nos. 500, 538, 558, and 568. Documents covered by granted sealing requests would remain sealed, while the parties had 14 days to file unredacted versions or renewed, coordinated sealing motions meeting the court’s requirements.
The detailed version
- In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation · No. 4:18-cv-01885
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 23, 2019
Background
The court considered four administrative motions to file documents under seal. Three motions concerned briefing on Philips’ motion for leave to amend infringement contentions: Docket Nos. 538, 558, and 568. The fourth, Docket No. 500, concerned ASUS’ motion to strike. The requested seals covered motions, declarations, exhibits, infringement contentions, discovery responses, and deposition-transcript excerpts.
Legal standard
The court explained that filings connected to dispositive motions generally require “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s strong right of access. Documents connected to nondispositive motions are subject to the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That standard requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice from disclosure. Broad or unsupported claims of confidentiality are insufficient.
Because the documents here related to nondispositive motions, the court applied the good-cause standard. It found good cause to seal portions containing confidential and proprietary business information relating to defendants’ operations. But it concluded that several requests were substantially overbroad, including requests to seal entire documents when the parties had not explained why every page or exhibit contained confidential information. The court also rejected requests when the designating party had not filed the required supporting declaration, had treated the information as nonconfidential, or had made the information publicly available elsewhere.
Rulings
The court granted ASUS’ motion, Docket No. 500, as to the entire sealing of Exhibits 8 and 9 to the declaration of Derek Neilson supporting defendants’ motion to strike.
For Philips’ motion, Docket No. 538, the court granted some specified pages, lines, exhibits, and redacted portions. It denied other requests because they were not narrowly tailored, because the designating party deemed the material nonconfidential, because no required supporting declaration was filed, or because Philips failed to make a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice. The court also denied the request to seal the entire declaration of Jonathan M. Sharret because it was not narrowly tailored.
For defendants’ motion, Docket No. 558, the court granted the requested sealing of specified excerpts, redacted portions, Exhibits 2 and 3 to Derek Neilson’s declaration, Exhibit 1 to Amy M. Bailey’s declaration, and Exhibit B to Patrick J. McKeever’s declaration. It denied sealing Exhibits C and D to McKeever’s declaration because the requests were not narrowly tailored.
For Philips’ motion, Docket No. 568, the court denied sealing Exhibit 11 to Sean M. McCarthy’s declaration because the required supporting declaration was not filed.
The conclusion states that the court granted in part and denied in part Docket Nos. 500, 538, 558, and 568. The parties had 14 days from the date of the order to file unredacted versions or renewed motions to seal. Any renewed motions had to follow a meet-and-confer process, coordinate redactions, and include the required Civil Local Rule 79-5 declarations. Documents covered by granted sealing requests would remain under seal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.