In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 18-cv-01885-HSG
LITIGATION
8 ORDER ON RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
9 UNDER SEAL This Document Relates To: 10 Re: Dkt. No. 860
ALL ACTIONS
11
12 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint renewed administrative motion to file under 13 seal. The Court previously granted in part and denied in part the parties’ administrative motions 14 to file under seal. Dkt. No. 789. Having carefully considered the pending motion and supporting 15 declarations, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ 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…