Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-07027
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bot M8 v. Sony, Judge Alsup granted the motions to seal specified discovery materials and denied them otherwise.
Bot M8 LLC, Sony Corporation of America, the other defendants, and the public’s access to the specified court records.
What happened
Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation of America, et al. is a patent-infringement case involving a dispute over documents exchanged during discovery. Both parties asked the court to keep certain documents and brief passages from public view.
The court applied a lower “good cause” standard because the sealed materials were connected to a discovery dispute unrelated to the case’s merits. It found that Bot M8 had shown good cause to seal limited information about a patent assignment and related references, based on reasonable claims of competitive harm.
The court allowed only the listed portions of Sony’s brief, a patent purchase agreement, a privilege log, responses to an interrogatory, and Bot M8’s brief to remain sealed for now; it denied the motions otherwise. Judge William Alsup warned that the parties could not rely on this order to seal the information in a future jurisdictional motion about whether Bot M8 owns sufficient patent rights to sue.
The detailed version
- Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America · No. 3:19-cv-07027
- William Alsup
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
This patent-infringement suit involved motions by both parties to seal documents submitted in connection with a discovery dispute. The court noted that the underlying dispute concerned whether Bot M8 LLC possessed sufficient rights in the asserted patents to have standing, meaning the legal ability to bring the suit.
Sealing Standard
Ordinarily, a court may seal court records only when there is a compelling reason, supported by specific facts. The court recognized an exception for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case. Under that exception, a party must show good cause to protect against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The court identified business information that could harm a party’s competitive standing as a possible compelling reason for sealing.
Ruling
The court held that Bot M8 had shown good cause at this stage. The permitted redactions were limited to information describing a patent assignment and substantive references to that information in the parties’ briefs. The court found the assertions of competitive harm reasonable under the less demanding standard applicable to this discovery dispute.
The court allowed only the following materials or portions to remain sealed for now:
- Sony’s brief, docket entry 98, specified lines on pages 1 through 3; - the entire patent purchase agreement, docket entry 98-2; - the entire privilege log, docket entry 98-3; - specified lines on page 2 of the responses to an interrogatory, docket entry 98-5; and - specified lines on pages 1 and 2 of Bot M8’s brief, docket entry 104.
The court stated that the motions were granted to that extent and denied otherwise. It also warned that the asserted competitive harm might not satisfy the compelling-reason standard later. If the sealed information were raised in a future motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the parties could not rely on this sealing order as the basis for continued secrecy. Judge William Alsup emphasized that the public is entitled to know who owns the patents at issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.