Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

Background

The order addresses six sets of motions to seal portions of discovery letters and related documents. The court noted a strong presumption that court records are accessible to the public. It explained that a party seeking to seal material connected to a non-dispositive motion must make a particularized showing of good cause, while material connected to a dispositive motion requires compelling reasons supported by specific facts. General statements that disclosure could cause competitive or commercial harm, and a confidentiality designation under a protective order, are not sufficient by themselves.

The plaintiffs generally asserted that the material contained confidential patent licenses and licensing negotiations, financial information, and information about business relationships. The court described many of these assertions as perfunctory or conclusory, including statements that disclosure would cause competitive harm without explaining how a competitor could use the information to obtain an unfair advantage.

Rulings

The attached chart ruled on the requests as follows:

- The request concerning highlighted portions of the joint letter brief regarding discovery issues, Dkt. No. 225-3, was denied. - The request concerning highlighted portions of Exhibit A to that brief, Dkt. No. 225-4, was granted. The court accepted Netflix’s narrowly tailored proposal to prevent disclosure of excerpts of its source code. - The request concerning highlighted portions of the discovery letter brief about Broadcom’s claim for lost profits, Dkt. No. 241-3, was denied. Broadcom did not ask to seal that material in its response. - The request to seal the entire exhibit to the lost-profits letter brief, Dkt. No. 241-4, was denied. The court said the request was more narrowly tailored to highlighted portions of pages 6 through 13, but the plaintiffs had not adequately explained how disclosure would cause competitive harm. - The request concerning highlighted portions of the discovery letter brief about Broadcom’s responses to discovery requests on patent misuse, Dkt. No. 280-3, was denied. - The requests to seal the entire Exhibits A, B, and C to that patent-misuse letter brief, Dkt. Nos. 280-4, 280-5, and 280-6, were each denied. For Exhibits B and C, the chart states that the plaintiffs did not ask to seal the material in their response. - The request concerning highlighted portions of the discovery letter brief about Netflix’s testimony on encoding topics, Dkt. No. 288-2, was denied because Netflix made no further showing explaining why the highlighted portions should be sealed. - The request concerning highlighted portions of the responsive letter brief about patent misuse, Dkt. No. 292-2, was granted in part. Sealing was allowed only for the terms of an agreement disclosed in paragraphs 5 and 6, identified as the paragraphs beginning with “Moreover” and “Again.” - The request concerning highlighted portions of the discovery letter brief about Broadcom’s wireless chips business, Dkt. No. 321-3, was denied.

Effect of the Order

The court directed the parties to file unredacted versions of the relevant documents on the electronic filing system within seven days of the order. The court stated that public access governs the documents or portions it declined to seal. The order does not decide the underlying discovery or patent-related disputes.