Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited
- Lucy Koh
- 5:20-cv-00193
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Cypress Semiconductor v. Fujitsu Semiconductor, Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part Cypress’s request to seal TRO-related filings.
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and the public’s ability to access the court records covered by the sealing request.
What happened
In Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, Cypress asked the court to keep certain exhibits supporting its request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction from public view.
The court said records connected to that request are closely related to the case, so Cypress needed specific, strong reasons for sealing them. It found that some pricing information could be protected, but that Cypress’s request to seal entire contracts and other exhibits was too broad and relied on general assertions about competitive harm.
Judge Lucy Koh granted the request for the specified cost information on page 4 of the Croll Declaration. She denied without prejudice the requests covering page 5 of Exhibit L and the other listed exhibits, allowing Cypress to file a narrower, better-supported sealing request by March 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited · No. 5:20-cv-00193
- Lucy Koh
- Feb. 26, 2020
Background
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation filed an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It also filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal certain exhibits supporting that application. The motion was supported by a declaration from Michael R. Headley.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be open to the public. Because the records related to the temporary restraining order application and were more than tangentially related to the underlying case, Cypress had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweighed the public’s interest in access. Under the Northern District of California’s local rule, a sealing request must also be narrowly tailored to cover only material that is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected.
Court’s analysis
The court found that some of the information Cypress sought to protect was sealable, but that the overall request was too broad. It granted the request for specific pricing information concerning the expected cost of recreating equipment involved in the case.
The court rejected Cypress’s request to seal entire contracts or exhibits merely because they contained some confidential terms. It explained that boilerplate language, definitions, and other generic contract provisions were not shown to reveal confidential information. The court also found that Cypress’s assertion that certain information could help customers in future negotiations was too general and did not explain specifically how disclosure would cause competitive harm.
Disposition
The court granted Cypress’s sealing request as to the cost information on page 4, line 4, of the Croll Declaration. It denied without prejudice the request to seal page 5 of Exhibit L to the Croll Declaration. It also denied without prejudice the requests concerning the entire exhibits identified as Exhibit 1 to Cypress’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; Exhibits C, H, I, J, and K to the Croll Declaration; and Exhibits A and B to the proposed temporary restraining order. The court directed Cypress to narrow any renewed request and provide specific factual support, and stated that a renewed motion could be filed by March 6, 2020.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.