1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS No. C 17-03981 WHA 10 LLC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 13 RENESAS ELECTRONICS TO FILE UNDER SEAL CORPORATION and RENESAS 14 ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for 18 lack of standing certain portions of plaintiff’s opposition to the motion and defendants’ reply 19 (Dkt. Nos. 107, 110). The motions are DENIED. 20 In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding 21 whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 22 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). To 23 seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons 24 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 25 policies favoring disclosure.” See

at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted). 26 Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss the 27 patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintiff (Dkt. 28 Nos. 107-1 ¶ 4; 111 ¶¶ 5–6). In support of the requests to seal, plaintiff states that the to the agreement and their Affiliates will keep confidential all terms and conditions of the agreement” and claims competitive harm if these terms and conditions are unsealed because 3 || they “could be used by competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 107-1 □□ 5—6; 111 fj 5-6). These reasons fail 4|| to show a compelling reason. 5 First, the conclusory assertion of competitive harm and boilerplate speculation that the 6 || terms and conditions could be used by competitors are far from specific factual findings that 7 || overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) 8 || and (d), confidentiality designations and agreements between the parties do not establish that a document is sealable. Third, the requests seek to seal large swaths of briefing and are thus far 10}| from “narrowly tailored,” as required under Rule 79-5(b). Fourth, the patent transfer agreement 11 has already been unsealed and publicly disclosed (save for AMD’s bank account information) a (see Case No. 18-1680, Dkt. No. 41-1), and the terms have already been publicly discussed in 5 13 || the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No. 96 at 3-4, 7, 5 9-10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the public docket 5 15} by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 28, 2019. f a □□ [x be WILLIAM ALSUP 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28