Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:19-cv-01315
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Cellwitch v. Tile, Judge White granted and denied requests to seal case materials, applying public-access standards and ordering narrower redactions.
Cellwitch Inc. and Tile, Inc., whose requests to seal portions of court filings were granted or denied in whole or in part; the parties also received filing and redaction deadlines.
What happened
In Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., the parties asked the court to seal portions of filings about Cellwitch’s motion concerning patent-review estoppel, Tile’s proposed amended answer, a meet-and-confer transcript, and claim-construction briefing.
The court granted some requests and denied others. It required the parties to file documents consistent with those rulings within seven days, and required Cellwitch to propose narrower redactions for two exhibits.
Judge Jeffrey S. White applied standards protecting the public’s access to court records, including a requirement for compelling reasons or, for records only indirectly related to the case’s merits, a particularized showing of likely harm. The order addressed sealing only and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-01315
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
The court considered the parties’ administrative requests to seal portions of filings concerning Cellwitch’s motion to enforce patent-review estoppel, Tile’s motion for leave to file a first amended answer, a July 13, 2023 meet-and-confer transcript, and Tile’s responsive claim-construction brief.
For most judicial records, the court stated that the party seeking to seal information must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public’s right of access. For records only tangentially related to the merits, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- Docket Nos. 162-3 and 162-4: granted. - Docket No. 185-4: granted. - Docket Nos. 185-5 and 185-6: denied. - Docket No. 185-7: granted. - Docket No. 185-8: denied. - Docket Nos. 185-9 and 185-10: granted. - Docket No. 185-11: denied. - Docket Nos. 185-12 and 185-13: denied. Cellwitch was directed to file a statement proposing narrower redactions consistent with information it had already filed publicly, within seven days. - Docket Nos. 185-14 and 185-15: denied. - Docket No. 192-3: denied. Tile was directed to file its proposed shortened excerpt of the transcript, Docket No. 192-4, instead of filing Docket No. 192-3 under seal. - Docket No. 197-3: granted as to Cellwitch’s proposed redactions in Docket No. 201-1. - Docket No. 199-3: denied. - Docket No. 199-4: granted. - Docket No. 199-5: denied. - Docket Nos. 199-6 through 199-12: granted.
The parties were directed to file the documents on the court’s docket consistent with the rulings within seven days of the order. In explaining certain denials, the court found that Cellwitch had not shown compelling reasons, that some documents contained no confidential information, or that Cellwitch had not properly requested sealing. The order concerned access to judicial records and did not resolve the underlying dispute. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.