Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.
4:15-cv-01414
N.D. Cal.Aug 31, 2017Background
- Phoenix Technologies Ltd. filed an unopposed administrative motion to seal portions of trial transcripts containing confidential licensing and pricing information.
- The requested redactions cover specific transcript pages and portions of deposition excerpts played at trial.
- Phoenix argued disclosure would harm its competitive position by revealing pricing/licensing terms to current or potential customers.
- The sealing request was presented under the Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the Ninth Circuit "compelling reasons" standard.
- The court reviewed whether the material is protectable as trade secret/confidential business information and whether the redactions were narrowly tailored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial transcript excerpts contain sealable confidential business information | Public access would reveal confidential licensing/pricing and impair Phoenix’s negotiating position | (No opposition to motion to seal) | Court: Excerpts contain sealable material and granting sealing is appropriate |
| Standard required to seal judicial records | Compelling reasons support sealing due to trade-secret-like pricing info | N/A | Court applied Ninth Circuit "compelling reasons" standard and Civil L.R. 79-5 requirements |
| Whether proposed redactions are narrowly tailored | Redactions limited to specific lines/pages to protect only sensitive pricing/terms | N/A | Court found redactions narrowly tailored and compliant with Civil L.R. 79-5 |
| Whether public interest outweighs confidentiality here | Harm to competitive position outweighs public access regarding these specific excerpts | N/A | Court concluded compelling reasons outweigh public access and granted sealing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing common-law right of public access to judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishing the "compelling reasons" standard and narrow-tailoring requirement)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (addressing presumption of access to discovery materials)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (origin of the public’s right to access judicial records)