u-blox AG v. InterDigital, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their complaint alleging breach of contract, arguing that the parties had agreed to maintain confidentiality regarding contract terms and negotiations. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to rebut the presumption of public access, and ordered the filing of an unredacted or amended complaint by February 13, 2023.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED.“Due to the foregoing, the motion to seal [Doc. No. 4] is hereby DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's standard from Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, which requires 'compelling reasons' to seal judicial records. The court found that the plaintiffs' reliance on a private confidentiality agreement was insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access, particularly because the specific portions sought to be sealed did not contain the detailed negotiation records or confidential documents necessary to justify such a seal. The decision follows the cited authority and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana) to the specific facts presented. It correctly identifies that a private confidentiality agreement is generally insufficient to seal court filings without a showing of specific, compelling harm (such as trade secrets or national security) that outweighs the public's right to access. The court's finding that the redacted portions lacked the specificity required to support the claim of competitive advantage provides a sufficient basis for the denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U-BLOX AG, et al, Case No.: 23-cv-0002-CAB-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION TO SEAL 14 INTERDIGITAL, INC., et al, 15 Defendants. [Doc. No. 4] 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to file portions of the complaint 18 under seal [Doc. No. 4]. For the following reasons, the motion to seal is DENIED. 19 “[C]ompelling reasons must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a 20 dispositive motion.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 21 2006). Settlement agreements are not to be sealed merely because the parties agreed to 22 keep the terms confidential. UCP Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Balsam Brands Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 23 828, 835 (N.D. Cal. 2017). In the present case, Plaintiffs argue that portions of the 24 complaint should be sealed because they “agreed [with Defendants] they would maintain 25 the confidentiality of the contract terms, the negotiation process, and would not disclose 26 them to third parties.” [Doc. No. 4 at 1]. However, the portions of the complaint Plaintiffs 27 attempt to seal do not include any official negotiation records or confidential documents 28 drafted between the Parties. The proposed redactions do not contain details specific enough 1 || to support Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding competitor advantage. Ultimately, Plaintiffs have 2 ||not demonstrated a compelling enough reason to “rebut[] the presumption of public 3 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. 4 Due to the foregoing, the motion to seal [Doc. No. 4] is hereby DENIED. Plaintiffs 5 ||have until February 13, 2023 to either file either an unredacted complaint or an amended 6 || complaint. 7 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: February 2, 2023 (6 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28