Interactive Play Devices LLC v. Wonder Workshop, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-00850
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Interactive Play Devices v. Wonder Workshop, Judge Alsup approved a stipulated protective order with strict limits on confidentiality and sealing.
Interactive Play Devices LLC, Wonder Workshop, Inc., and the parties’ counsel handling confidential information and court filings in the case.
What happened
In Interactive Play Devices LLC v. Wonder Workshop, Inc., the court approved the parties’ stipulated protective order in the patent-related case, subject to additional conditions. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The parties must designate information as confidential only when it truly qualifies for protection and must limit designations to material supported by good cause. Court filings containing confidential material must follow the court’s sealing rules, with requests limited to specific portions and all other material placed in the public record.
Judge William Alsup also required heightened justification for sealing material involving public health or safety and for material used in dispositive motions or motions in limine. The court allowed challenges to confidentiality designations and retained jurisdiction over disputes concerning the protective order for 90 days after the action’s final termination.
The detailed version
- Interactive Play Devices LLC v. Wonder Workshop, Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-00850
- William Alsup
- Oct. 2, 2019
Background
The parties submitted a stipulated protective order governing confidential information exchanged in the case. The court approved it, but imposed conditions concerning confidentiality designations, sealed filings, courtroom use, and post-case disputes.
Conditions on Confidentiality
The parties must make a good-faith determination that information designated as confidential warrants protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Designations must be narrowly tailored to material for which there is good cause. The court warned that a pattern of over-designation could lead to wholesale removal of confidential designations.
A party seeking to file confidential material with the court must submit a sealing request complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Sealing requests must be limited to portions for which good cause exists, while other portions must remain in the public file. Each filing requires an individualized sealing order; the protective order does not provide blanket advance authorization to seal.
Sealing and Courtroom Use
The court stated that requests to seal information concerning potential hazards to public health, safety, or well-being would be granted only for the most compelling reason. Any sealing or redaction request must specifically identify material implicating those issues.
Under the Ninth Circuit standard cited by the court, material used in summary-judgment motions and other dispositive motions may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” a higher standard than good cause. The court stated that most summary-judgment materials should be publicly available and warned that noncompliant submissions could be stricken in their entirety. Motions in limine are also generally to remain open absent compelling reasons. Confidential materials used openly at hearings or trial will not receive special treatment unless the court later orders otherwise.
Chambers copies must include both redacted and unredacted material, clearly identifying confidential portions. The court stated that confidential chambers copies will generally be handled like ordinary chambers copies and typically recycled rather than shredded.
Other Provisions and Ruling
The order does not prevent either party from asking the court to remove a confidentiality designation. The party that designated material as confidential bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to protection. The court retained jurisdiction over disputes arising from the protective order for 90 days after final termination of the action.
Judge William Alsup approved the stipulated protective order subject to these conditions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.