SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — In an order issued Wednesday, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted in part and denied in part administrative motions to seal, finding that HP’s reliance on protective order designations was insufficient to justify keeping litigation documents under seal.
Van Keulen noted that HP’s declarations added little beyond reiterating that materials were designated as confidential. "Mere '[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable," the judge wrote, citing Civil Local Rule 79-5(c).
Even of discovery, where the presumption of public access is lesser, HP bore the burden to explain how injury would result if sealing was denied. In the absence of such explanation, Van Keulen found HP’s proposed redactions "overbroad on their face."
The court did grant sealing for portions of UCT’s motion for discovery sanctions that referenced HP’s unit sales, finding UCT’s statement on the matter persuasive.
Van Keulen also admonished HP for seeking to seal the name of counterparty Intel and the existence of a license, noting the court had already rejected such requests because Intel’s identity as a licensor was already publicly available in the case.
"Careless and overbroad submissions may be grounds for denial of HP’s sealing request in its entirety," Van Keulen warned.
The court ordered UCT and HP to file revised, redacted public copies of specific documents by May 27, 2026. HP was also given the opportunity to renew its request to seal a declaration by Theresa Klusendorf, provided it identified tailored information and justified the harm from disclosure.