1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS No. C 17-04034 WHA LLC, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING 13 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TOSHIBA CORPORATION, et al., TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal in connection with defendants’ motion to dismiss for 17 lack of standing certain portions of the briefing and exhibits in connection with the underlying 18 19 motion (Dkt. Nos. 194, 204, 208). The motions are DENIED. In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding 20 whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 21 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). To 22 seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons 23 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 24 policies favoring disclosure.” See

at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted). 25 Specifically, plaintiff seeks to redact portions of the briefs that quote to and discuss the 26 patent transfer agreement between Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and plaintif, the 27 patent transfer agreement itself, and the amendment thereto (Dkt. Nos. 194 at 1; 204 at 2; 208 a 28 confidentiality provision at page 12, which provides that the parties to the agreement and their Affiliates will keep confidential all terms and conditions of the agreement” and claims 3 || competitive harm if these terms and conditions are unsealed because they “could be used by 4|| competitors” (Dkt. Nos. 197 4§ 5-6; 204-1 99 5-6; 211 49 4-6). These reasons fail to show a 5 || compelling reason. 6 First, the conclusory assertion of competitive harm and boilerplate speculation that the terms and conditions could be used by competitors are far from specific factual findings that 8 || overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Second, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) 9|| and (d), confidentiality designations and agreements between the parties do not establish that a 10} document is sealable. Third, the requests seek to seal large swaths of briefing and are thus far from “narrowly tailored,” as required under Rule 79-5(b). Fourth, the patent transfer agreement E 12 || has already been unsealed and publicly disclosed (save for AMD’s bank account information) 5 13] (see Case No. 18-1680, Dkt. No. 41-1), and the terms have already been publicly discussed in 5 14}| the order granting the motions to dismiss (see, e.g., Case No. 17-5458, Dkt. No. 96 at 3-4, 7, 5 15} 9-10). The parties shall file unredacted versions of the documents at issue on the public docket by OCTOBER 4 AT NOON. 2 47 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: September 28, 2019. f i “" {x bee WILLIA SUP 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28