Opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7 RAILWARE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-05725-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

v. ORDER GRANTING

9 ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT MOTIONS

10 POWERS BOARD,

[Re: ECF Nos. 102, 103, 105, 126, 129]

11 Defendant.

12

13

14 Before the Court are three sealing motions and two administrative motions to consider

15 whether another party’s materials should be sealed. See ECF Nos. 102 (Railware’s sealing

16 motion), 103 (Railware’s administrative motion to consider sealing), 105 (Caltrain’s sealing

17 motion), 126 (Caltrain’s sealing motion), 129 (Railware’s administrative motion to consider

18 sealing). The three sealing motions are unopposed, and Caltrain has filed supporting declarations

19 in support of sealing with respect to Railware’s administrative motions to consider sealing. See

20 ECF Nos. 109, 110, 131. The motions concern whether to seal portions of the briefing in

21 connection with Railware’s motion for leave to amend infringement contentions and Caltrain’s

22 motion to dismiss.

23 The motions are GRANTED.

24 I. LEGAL STANDARD

25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

27 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

1 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

3 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

4 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

5 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

6 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

7 In addition to making particularized showings of compelling reasons for sealing, parties

8 moving to seal documents must comply with the local civil rules, which provide that a sealing

9 order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged

10 or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-

11 5(b). Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is

12 narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or

13 portion thereof that is sought to be sealed” and an “unredacted version of the document” that

14 indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been

15 omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), (d). “Within 4 days of the filing of

16 the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . .

17 establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

18 II. DISCUSSION

19 The portions identified in the sealing motions are narrowly tailored to protect confidential

20 information that, if publicly disclosed, may cause competitive harm. ECF No. 102 at 2.

21 The sealable information in Railware’s exhibits to Railware’s Motion for Leave to Amend

22 Infringement Contentions includes confidential license agreements and licensing practices,

23 including customers, sales data, payment terms, and prior litigation settlement information.

24 Courts in the Ninth Circuit regularly seal information related to confidential license and settlement

25 agreements. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)

26 (nonprecedential); Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, No. 19-cv-01389-

27 EJD, 2022 WL 2313948, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2022) (explaining that disclosure of pricing and

1 exhibits also contain references to proprietary technical information that if disclosed could cause

2 competitive harm. See DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330- HSG, 2020 WL

3 789549, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (sealing “information regarding the identity and

4 operations of third party supplied components in [the party’s] products”).

5 The sealable information in Caltrain’s motion to dismiss contains similar sealable

6 information, including technical documentation of the internal implementation, use, and

7 functionality of certain components and systems. See, e.g., Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-

8 04844-BLF, 2024 WL 4493441, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2024) (finding compelling reasons to

9 seal source code related to business operations); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 17-cv-05671-

10 BLF, 2024 WL 1548481, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024) (finding compelling reasons to seal

11 “information regarding its past and current intellectual property licensing and monetization

12 objectives, strategies, practices, capabilities, and efforts”); City of Birmingham Relief & Ret. Sys.

13 v. Hastings, No. 18-cv-02107-BLF, 2019 WL 3815720, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) (explaining

14 that information disclosing “internal operating procedures” may be sealed).

15 III. ORDER

16 The sealing motions are accordingly GRANTED. The Court finds compelling reasons to

17 seal the materials as indicated in the tables below:

18 ECF Document & Portions to Granted/Denied

No. Seal

19

101-3 Exhibit B to Railware’s GRANTED. The identified portions contain confidential

20 Motion for Leave to information relating to confidential license and settlement

Amend Infringement agreements, licensing practices, and other confidential

21 Contentions: business dealings. Public disclosure of this information

would cause harm to the Parties.

22

Highlighted portions at 9–

23 15, 22–41, 43–45, 52–54.

24 101-4 Exhibit C to Railware’s GRANTED. The exhibit contains confidential information

Motion for Leave to relating to confidential license and settlement agreements,

25 Amend Infringement licensing practices, and other confidential business dealings.

Contentions: Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to

26 the Parties.

27 Entirety.

1 101-5 | Exhibit D to Railware’s GRANTED. The exhibit contains confidential information

Motion for Leave to relating to confidential license and settlement agreements,

2 Amend Infringement licensing practices, and other confidential business dealings.

Contentions: Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to

3 the Parties.

4 Entirety.

5 101-3 | Exhibit E to Railware’s GRANTED. The exhibit contains confidential information

Motion for Leave to relating to confidential license and settlement agreements,

6 Amend Infringement licensing practices, and other confidential business dealings.

Contentions: Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to

7 the Parties.

g Entirety.

9

10 ECF | Document & Portions to | Granted/Denied

No. | Seal

1]

106 | Caltrain’s Motion to GRANTED. The identified portions contain confidential

a 12 Dismiss First Amended technical and sensitive information that describes the interna

Complaint: implementation, use, and functionality of components and

13 systems, including system architecture. Public disclosure of

this information could cause harm to the Parties.

Highlighted portions at 1—

4, 8-18, 21.

15

106-2 | Exhibit 1 to Caltrain’s GRANTED. This exhibit contains confidential technical an

A 16 Motion to Dismiss First sensitive information that describes the internal

Amended Complaint: implementation, use, and functionality of components and

17 systems, including system architecture. Public disclosure of

this information could cause harm to the Parties.

Z 18 Entirety.

19 127-5 | Exhibit 5 to Railware’s GRANTED. The identified portions contain confidential

Opposition to Caltrain’s technical and sensitive information that describes the interna

20 Motion to Dismiss First implementation, use, and functionality of components and

Amended Complaint: systems, including system architecture. Public disclosure of

21 this information could cause harm to the Parties.

22 Highlighted portions

at 11.

23

24

95 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2026

27 BETH LABSON FREEMAN

28 United States District Judge