1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZTE (USA) INC., Case No. 18-cv-06185-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL

10 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 131 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc.’s renewed administrative motion to 14 file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of 15 Bradford C. Schulz in support of the Motion to Supplement, as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the 16 Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety. See Dkt. No. 131. For the reasons articulated 17 below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 21 derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 22 judicial records and documents.’”

(quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

(9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 24 Kamakana,

(quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the 25 party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling 26 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 27 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 1 However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the same 2 strong presumption of access. See id. at 1179. Because such records “are often unrelated, or only 3 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower 4 “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179–80 (quotations 5 omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 6 result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 8 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 9 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Because the documents that Plaintiff seeks to seal relate to a non-dispositive motion, the 12 Court will apply the lower good cause standard. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1 and 2 13 to the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety, as well as the portions of Plaintiff’s 14 Motion to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in support of the 15 Motion to Supplement that discuss those two exhibits. See Dkt. No. 131; see also Dkt. No. 106. 16 The Court had previously denied the motion to seal these documents because the parties failed to 17 make the requisite showing of prejudice or harm. See Dkt. No. 124 at 2–3 (citing Phillips, 307 18 F.3d at 1210–11). Instead, the parties relied on their designation of the material as “RESTRICTED 19 – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” See

20 However, in response to the renewed motion, Defendant AGIS Software Development 21 LLC filed a declaration detailing that these documents contain confidential business and 22 proprietary information relating to the operations of non-party Advanced Ground Information 23 Systems, Inc. (“AGIS Inc.”). See Dkt. No. 136. Exhibits 1 and 2 are deposition transcripts taken 24 in connection with Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv- 25 80651-DMM (S.D. Fl.), and contain information about AGIS Inc.’s technology, business 26 strategies, and classified dealings with the government and military, which if public, would place 27 AGIS Inc. in financial risk and give competitors an unfair advantage.

at ¶¶ 4–6. 1 1 and 2 in their entirety, as well as the portions of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record 2 and the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in support of the Motion to Supplement that discuss 3 those exhibits, as indicated in the table below. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11- 4 CV-01846-LHK,

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, 5 LLC y. TriZetto Group, Inc.,

(E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. 6 || Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW,

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). 7 g Docket Number Portions Sought Ruling Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed 9 Plaintiff's Renewed Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 131 106-8; 106-9; 131- Exhibits 1-2 to the to the | Entire Exhibits GRANTED: 10 7; and 131-8; Declaration of Bradford confidential business C. Schulz filed in support information. 11 of Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the Record 106-5; 131-4 Excerpts of Plaintiff's Pages and lines: GRANTED: & 13 Motion to Supplement 1:9-11; 2:20-3:3, | confidential business a the Record & n.1; 4:8-12, information. 14 4:14-16; 4:26- 5:5; 5:16-19: 1S 5:21. A 16 106-7; 131-6 Excerpts of the Pages and lines: GRANTED: Declaration of Bradford 1:25-27; 2:5—-7. confidential business 17 C. Schulz filed in support information. of the Motion to Z 18 Supplement the Record 19 20 I. CONCLUSION 21 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), the 22 documents identified above will remain under seal. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 11/5/2019 25 Abaupyred 3 6 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 27 28