Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
ByteDance moved to seal four categories of material filed with its opposition (ECF No. 132) to WebOS's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint: portions of the opposition itself (ECF No. 132-3); Exhibit 15, an NDA between WebOS and a ByteDance affiliate, in its entirety; Exhibit 16, email communications regarding patent negotiations, in its entirety; and portions of Exhibit 17, an email chain between counsel for the parties. ByteDance argued that disclosure would create a substantial risk of competitive harm by revealing confidential negotiation strategies, expose personal information of its employees, and contravene the parties' agreement that the NDA and related correspondence would remain confidential and not be used in the litigation. The order notes that the motion was mooted as to the underlying dispute when the parties agreed at the initial case management conference that WebOS could file a second amended complaint, but the court proceeded to rule on the sealing motion.
WebOS opposed (ECF No. 133), arguing that ByteDance's competitive-harm assertions were generalized and insufficient, that ByteDance had placed the NDA at issue by relying on it in the opposition brief, and that the proposed sealing was not narrowly tailored because some documents contained non-confidential material. The opposition was untimely: the motion was filed Monday, June 8, 2026, so the opposition was due Friday, June 12 under Civil Local Rule 7-11(b)'s four-day deadline for administrative motions, but it was filed June 14. The court exercised its discretion to consider the arguments while directing WebOS to review and comply with the local rules for future filings.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the compelling-reasons standard because motions for leave to amend are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case—the outcome may change the foundations of the lawsuit. Under that standard, the movant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of public access with compelling reasons that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.
The court denied all four sealing requests. As to Exhibit 15, it found the NDA was a cookie-cutter agreement with cookie-cutter provisions, that it strains credulity to suggest public disclosure would adversely affect ByteDance's future negotiation prospects, and that seeking to seal the entire NDA fell short of the obligation to narrowly tailor by designating specific confidential portions. Because the opposition excerpts ByteDance sought to seal all related to the NDA, that request failed for the same reasons. As to Exhibit 16, an email from WebOS to ByteDance, the court found the only contact information was the corporate email addresses of two ByteDance employees, which hardly gives rise to a privacy interest sufficient to defeat the strong presumption of public access, and the boilerplate confidentiality provision referred to WebOS's confidential information, not ByteDance's. The request to seal portions of Exhibit 17 failed because those portions related to the NDA and there was no good cause, much less any compelling reason, to seal them.
Operatively, the court ordered that the motion to seal is DENIED, that ByteDance shall refile its opposition to the motion for leave to amend and supporting exhibits without the proposed redactions by November 19, 2026, and that the order terminates ECF Nos. 132 and 133.
Key Takeaways
- Motions for leave to amend and related documents are subject to the compelling-reasons standard for sealing because they are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.
- A party seeking to seal an NDA must offer specific, concrete evidence of harm and narrowly tailor the request to genuinely confidential portions rather than sealing the entire agreement.
- Corporate email addresses of employees do not create a privacy interest sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of public access to court records.
- Boilerplate confidentiality provisions protecting the sender's own information do not justify sealing when the recipient is the party seeking protection.
- Oppositions to motions to seal are due within four days under Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), though the court retains discretion to consider an untimely opposition.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the strong presumption of public access to court records in patent litigation and the heavy burden parties face when seeking to seal materials tied to a motion for leave to amend. The court's skepticism toward the claim that a standard NDA contains competitively sensitive information shows that generalized assertions of harm will not suffice; parties must point to specific, truly confidential content.
The decision also underscores the requirement of narrow tailoring: parties cannot seal entire documents when only portions contain genuinely sensitive material. That approach protects public access while still leaving room for targeted protection of legitimately confidential information, and it confirms that courts will enforce the local rules' deadlines while retaining discretion over untimely sealing oppositions.