1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SANDISK STORAGE MALAYSIA SDN. Case No. 22-cv-04376-HSG BHD., et al., 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 277 10

VIASAT, INC.,

11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ amended administrative motion to consider whether 14 another part’s materials should be sealed. Dkt. No. 277. For the reasons detailed below, the Court 15 GRANTS the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 7 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 8 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 9 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 10 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 11 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 12 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 13 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 14 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 15 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Sandisk submitted the proposed sealed materials in support of its opposition to Viasat’s 18 Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringment. Dkt No. 241. The Court ruled on the sealing 19 motion and found that while Sandisk met the “compelling reasons” standard to seal materials 20 appended to dispositive motions, it did not narrowly tailor its sealing request. Dkt No. 275 at 9. 21 Sandisk’s exhibits constituted over 2,000 pages, but Sandisk referenced only a limited number of 22 those pages. Id. The Court ordered Sandisk to file an amended motion that appropriately 23 excerpted Exhibits 14–18, 20, 22, 23–25, 27, and 32. Id. 24 Sandisk refiled its motion and reduced the number of pages it seeks to seal. Of the exhibits 25 the Court ordered Sandisk to refile, it reduced the total page count by 796. Visat did not file an 26 objection or response to Sandisk’s amended motion. After reviewing the materials, the Court 27 finds that the current request (and Viasat’s prior arguments, Dkt. No. 257) satisfies the

I. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the amended administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 277. 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 3 motion is granted will remain under seal. 4

IT ISSO ORDERED.

5

7 S. GILLIAM, JR. i g United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28