Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. et al v. CM HK, Ltd.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CM HK, LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-06567-JST
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
Re: ECF No. 177
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider whether another party's
material should be sealed in its amended complaint. ECF No. 177. Defendant filed a response
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). ECF No. 179. The Court will deny the motion without
prejudice.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local
Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all
documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.
City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations
omitted).
With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that
(1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill
the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 180 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a
document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).
With respect to the second prong, the showing required to overcome the strong
presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A]
‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong
presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons
supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal citations omitted).
On the other hand, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the
merits of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a
showing under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at
1097. A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to
seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.
2374 (2012).
II. DISCUSSION
Because the materials sought to be sealed are contained within an amended complaint, the
Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. S. Glazers Wine &
Spirits, LLC, No. 8:24-CV-02684-FWS-ADS, 2025 WL 819070, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2025)
(applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a complaint because that document “is the
foundation of a lawsuit” and “more than tangentially related to [the] merits” of the case (citation
modified)). “‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and
justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 180 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Nixon Court also noted that the “common-law right of inspection has
bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 435 U.S. at 598.
The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade secret in this context as
“any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and
which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use
it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts
§ 757, cmt. b). In that case, applying Kamakana and Nixon, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district
court for refusing to seal information that qualified under this standard. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298
Fed. App’x at 569. The Federal Circuit has similarly concluded that under Ninth Circuit law,
detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, and internal reports are
appropriately sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard where that information could be
used to the company’s competitive disadvantage. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d
1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Defendant here seeks to seal portions of paragraphs 11, 17–18, 20–21, 55, 58–59, 67–91,
93–94, 96–103, 106–15, 117, 119, 121, 122, 125–26 in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. ECF No.
179 at 4–8. Defendant contends that those paragraphs contain confidential business information,
including excerpts of agreements between CyWee Group Ltd. (an entity alleged to be related to
Defendant) and various third parties, including licensing and settlement agreements. ECF No.
179-1 ¶¶ 5–9; Am Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17. Defendant claims that the amended complaint also contains
Defendant’s and CyWee Motion Group, Ltd.’s confidential financial and business strategy
information. ECF No. 179-1 ¶ 10.
Defendant categorizes the information it seeks to seal as “Confidential Licensing
Agreement,” “Confidential material of a third-party,” “Confidential business information,”
“personal information of a non-party,” “financial information not subject to public disclosure,”
“testimony designated Highly Confidential,” “internal Shareholder agreement not subject to public
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 180 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
disclosure,” or “financial records of non-party entities.” ECF No. 179 at 4–8. It provides little
other explanation for its sealing requests. Those descriptions do not suffice to provide a
“compelling reason” for the pleading to be sealed. See Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No.
10-cv-05072-VC, 2016 WL 11730952, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) (“conclusory statements
that publication of the information ‘could pose significant commercial harm to [the party seeking
to maintain information under seal]’ . . . does not come close to establishing compelling reasons to
conceal this material from the public”).
Defendant also makes no argument about why disclosure of any of the information sought
to be sealed would be harmful to itself or a third party. See ECF No. 179. And it provides no
explanation how it has safeguarded this information outside of confidentiality designations. See
Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (explaining that a confidentiality designation “is not sufficient to
establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable”). It appears that some of the
information contained in the amended complaint could be properly sealed, see Rodman v. Safeway
Inc., No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2014 WL 12787874, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) (sealing
“internal, nonpublic information discussing [the defendant’s] pricing strategy, business
decisionmaking, and financial records, which would expose [the defendant] to competitive harm if
disclosed”), but the Court cannot evaluate explanations Defendant hasn’t given.
The Court also finds that the requested sealing is not sufficiently tailored. For example,
Defendant seeks to seal information in ¶¶ 18, 20, 21, 58 that is left unsealed in ¶ 16. See Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 20, 21, 58. Defendant seeks to seal other portions of the amended complaint
without any apparent indication that disclosure of the information would be harmful. See Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 55, 61, 63 (mentioning individuals’ roles in CyWee), Am. Compl. ¶ 66 (referencing
publicly available patent information).
CONCLUSION
The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal without prejudice. ECF No. 179. Defendant
may refile an amended response within seven days of this Order. If Defendant does not amend its
response within seven days, the Court will not consider the documents as to which the motion is
denied unless the filing party files those documents in the public record without redaction within
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 180 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
fourteen days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
May 6, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-06567-JST Document 180 Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 5