Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC

Background

North Forty Consulting LLC, identified in the order as the defendant and counterclaimant, asked to file under seal portions of its answer and a declaration from its counsel. North Forty sought to seal excerpts that it said contained or reflected confidential information and materials. The requested excerpts concerned the parties’ consulting agreement and other business dealings.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. For the materials at issue, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires a strong justification for restricting public access. The court noted that confidential business information such as licensing agreements, financial terms, confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies can meet that standard.

What the court sealed

The court held that explicit references to terms of the consulting agreement reflected confidential business information and dealings that were not intended for public disclosure. Those references warranted sealing.

The court also found that references to the terms of a settlement negotiated by North Forty and Harris with Comcast reflected confidential business information. References to the terms of North Forty’s license agreement with Landis+Gyr, and to how that agreement affected the parties’ relationship under the consulting agreement, also concerned confidential licensing negotiations and financial terms and warranted sealing.

What the court did not seal

The court found that descriptions of how North Forty assisted Bunsow De Mory LLP in Huawei litigation did not deserve sealing because they did not identify any patent with enough specificity to give competitors an advantage and did not provide specific details about technical or commercial discussions with Huawei.

The court similarly found that the answer’s discussion of work North Forty performed for L3Harris Technologies during negotiations with Acacia Research Corporation did not warrant sealing. That discussion summarized North Forty’s conduct without explaining whether it resulted from confidential negotiations or identifying specific patents whose value or viability was shown by licensing discussions with Comcast. The court also found that references to claim charts, financial and economic models, and requested communications did not reveal specific terms or other information that would harm the parties’ competitive standing.

Disposition

The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part North Forty’s administrative motion to file under seal. The court ordered North Forty to file an unredacted version of the answer within seven days of the order.