The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 SONOS, INC.,
11 Plaintiff, No. C 21-07559 WHA
12 v.
13 GOOGLE LLC, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
14 Defendant.
15
16 This order addresses pending motions to seal filed in connection with the Sonos’s third
17 amended complaint and Google’s answer (Dkt. Nos. 160, 212–14, 221–22).
18 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
19 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
21 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
22 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
23 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). But a good cause standard applies to the sealing
24 of documents that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the underlying claim. Id. at
25 1098–99. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing
26 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of
27 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002).
1 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that
2 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that
3 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not
4 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the
5 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could
6 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would
7 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for
8 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons
9 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
10 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information
11 because it “is not necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner
12 Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
13 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or
14 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or
15 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung
16 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
17 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
18 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
19 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
20 Here, both parties have requested to seal material in connection with Sonos’s third
21 amended complaint and Google’s answer (Dkt. Nos. 160, 212–14, 221–22). Upon review, this
22 order rules as follows:
23
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
24
No. Sealed
25 160-2 Exh. 2 DENIED. Google seeks to seal general, technical
information regarding its systems and
26 operations (Dkt. Nos. 163–64). Google’s
support for sealing is insufficient because
27 it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
Google does not describe with
1
particularity how disclosure of this
2 general information would cause it
competitive harm. It merely provides the
3 generic, boilerplate assertion that
“competitors could use these details
4 regarding the architecture and
functionality of Google’s products to
5
gain a competitive advantage in the
6 marketplace with respect to their
competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
7 Google cites no authority indicating why
this high-level information is sealable.
8 See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015
WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
9
2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). The
10 public interest in disclosure therefore
outweighs Google’s interest in keeping
11 the material sealed.
160-3 Exh. 3 DENIED. Google clarified in its supporting
12 declaration that it does not seek to seal
this material (Dkt. No. 163).
13
212-2 Exh. CD to GRANTED. Google asks to seal confidential licensing
14 Sonos’s Third negotiations, public disclosure of which
Amended Compl. may cause Google competitive harm (Ma
15 Decl.).
212-3 Exh. CI GRANTED. Google asks to seal portions of Sonos’s
16
infringement contention chart, public
17 disclosure of which may cause Google
competitive harm (Ma Decl.)
18 212-4 Exh. CJ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 212-3.
212-5 Exh. CK GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 212-3.
19
212-6 Exh. CL GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 212-3.
20 212-7 Exh. CW DENIED. Google clarified in its supporting
declaration that it does not seek to seal
21 this material (Dkt. No. 217).
213-3; Exh. CC GRANTED. Google asks to seal confidential licensing
22 214-3 negotiations, public disclosure of which
may cause Google competitive harm (Ma
23
Decl.).
24 213-4; Exh. CE GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 214-4.
214-4
25 221-3; Google’s Answer GRANTED. The parties ask to seal references to
222-2 confidential business negotiations and
26
agreements, public disclosure of which
27 may cause both parties harm (Ma Decl.;
Richter Decl.).
221-4; Exh. 2 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No, 221-3.
1
222-3
2 221-5; Exh. 3 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No, 221-3.
222-4
3 221-6 See entry for Dkt. No. 221-3.
4 The parties should please note, in the future, at trial or otherwise, the sealing calculus
5 may change with respect to any of the foregoing documents. All relevant documents shall be
6 refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 31, 2023, at NOON.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: February 24, 2023.
10
11 =
LLIAM ALSUP
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
©
15
16
&
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28