1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS LLC, No. C 17-04033 WHA 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 12 UNITED MICROELECTRONICS TO FILE UNDER SEAL CORPORATION and UMC GROUP (USA), 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 The parties seek to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for 16 lack of standing certain portions of the briefing and exhibits in connection with the underlying 17 motion (Dkt. Nos. 64, 68, 71). The motions are DENIED. 18 In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when 19 deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 20 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 21 2003)). To seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling 22 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and 23 the public policies favoring disclosure.” See

at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted). 24 Specifically, the parties seek to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss 25 the patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintiff, 26 the patent transfer agreement itself, and the amendment thereto (Dkt. Nos. 64 at 2; 68 at 2; 71 27 at 2). In support of the requests to seal, plaintiff states that the agreement itself “includes a 28 confidentiality provision at page 12, which provides that the parties to the agreement and their 1 |] competitive harm if these terms and conditions are unsealed because they “could be used by 2 || competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 67 {fj 5—6; 68-1 94 5-6; 74 {| 4-6). These reasons fail to show a 3 || compelling reason. 4 First, the conclusory assertion of competitive harm and boilerplate speculation that the 5 || terms and conditions could be used by competitors are far from specific factual findings that 6 || overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) and (d), confidentiality designations and agreements between the parties do not establish that a 8 || document is sealable. Third, the requests seek to seal large swaths of briefing and are thus far 9|| from “narrowly tailored,” as required under Rule 79-5(b). Fourth, the patent transfer 10} agreement has already been unsealed and publicly disclosed (save for AMD’s bank account 3 information) (see Case No. 18-1680, Dkt. No. 41-1), and the terms have already been publicly

12 | discussed in the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No. 13} 96 at 3-4, 7, 9-10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the

14]| public docket by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON.

15

5 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 18] Dated: September 28, 2019. Lt Pe WILLIAM ALSUP 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28