In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, Judge Gilliam ordered parties to follow detailed procedures for future requests to seal court filings.
The parties in all actions in the litigation, as well as non-parties with potentially sealable information.
What happened
In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation concerns how the parties must handle future requests to keep court filings or portions of filings from public view. The order applies to all actions in the litigation.
The court required proposed sealing orders to identify the relevant docket numbers, document names, specific portions to be sealed, and specific reasons supported by declarations and legal authority. It also established procedures for responsive declarations, requests based on non-party confidentiality obligations, and combined motions when multiple sealing requests arise.
Judge Haywood Gilliam ordered the parties to follow these procedures and Civil Local Rule 79-5. The order also states that if no required responsive declaration is filed, the party that requested sealing must notify the court and indicate that the motion should be denied.
The detailed version
- In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation · No. 4:18-cv-01885
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
The court anticipated that the parties would continue filing numerous administrative motions to seal—requests to keep documents or portions of documents from public access. The order applies to all actions in the litigation and establishes procedures intended to streamline those requests.
Required information for sealing requests
For each item sought to be sealed, a proposed order under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B) must identify:
- the docket numbers for the public and provisionally sealed versions of the document; - the document’s name; - the specific portions sought to be sealed; and - the filer’s specific reasons, with citations to supporting declarations and legal authority.
The court stated that general references to a category of privilege, without explanation or a specific connection to the documents, do not satisfy the burden for sealing. The parties may use the four-column table in Docket No. 386 as a template.
Responsive declarations and non-party information
A designating party’s responsive declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) must explain the reasons for sealing and cite supporting declarations and legal authority. If the designating party seeks less extensive sealing than the original motion, it must provide revised redacted and unredacted versions that meet the rule’s requirements, including clearly marking the portions sought to be sealed in the unredacted version.
A declaration relying on confidentiality obligations owed to a non-party must be served on that non-party under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). The non-party must be told about the procedures for designating information for sealing and has four days from service of the declaration, rather than from filing of the administrative motion, to submit its responsive declaration.
If no responsive declaration is filed, the party that filed the administrative motion must notify the court and indicate that the motion should be denied on that basis.
Future combined motions
When parties anticipate multiple sealing motions in later briefing, the parties and any non-parties with potentially sealable information must jointly file a new combined administrative motion covering all unopposed requests after briefing is complete. If requests are opposed, each party or non-party making opposed requests should file one combined administrative motion covering all of its opposed requests. The later combined motion must identify the docket numbers of earlier motions that it supersedes. The order also directs the parties to email the proposed order to the court’s chambers on the day it is electronically filed and not to provide redacted chambers copies.
Disposition
Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the procedures and stated, "IT IS SO ORDERED." This order sets filing and notification requirements for sealing requests; it does not decide the merits of the patent litigation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.