Pattern Inc. v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al

1
25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATTERN INC., a Utah corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
APPLICATION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(ECF No. 80)
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Counterclaimant,
v.
PATTERN INC., a Utah corporation,
Counterdefendant.
Presently before the Court is Defendant and Counterclaimant Arlo Technologies,
Inc.’s Application to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 80). Also before the
Court is Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Pattern Inc.’s Response and Joinder (“Resp.,” ECF
No. 86). 	For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Application.
Case 3:25-cv-00516-JLS-BJW Document 88 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
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
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 	Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 	“Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption
of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong
presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden
depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than
tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When
the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling
reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass
the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. 	Id. 	A motion to
intervene for the limited purpose of moving to disqualify counsel is no more than
tangentially related to the merits and is thus subject to the less exacting good cause
standard. 	See Champion Power Equip. Inc. v. Firman Power Equip. Inc., No. CV-23-
02371-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 992005, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2025) (citing Ctr. for Auto
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-
05501 SI, 2014 WL 12642225, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014) (“Because a motion to
amend infringement or invalidity contentions is a non-dispositive motion, the ‘good cause’
standard applies.”) (citations omitted).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-00516-JLS-BJW Document 88 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
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
DISCUSSION
Arlo requests that three categories of documents be filed under seal: (1) information
related to Denton US’s Negotiated Fee Arrangement with Arlo; (2) the Wright Irrevocable
Trust’s Engagement Letter; and (3) documents with information designated as confidential
by Plaintiff. Mot. at 5. Pattern does not take a position on any document in the first two
categories but requests two types of documents within the third category be filed under
seal: (1) Pattern’s confidential financial information; and (2) Pattern’s confidential internal
business strategy. Resp. at 2.
Beginning with the fee arrangement, Arlo seeks to seal portions of its Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Declaration of Brian Busse, and
paragraph 31 of the Declaration of Michael J. Duvall. Id. at 6. Courts agree that disclosure
of a law firm’s negotiated rates can harm law firms “by providing current and prospective
clients—and potentially its competitors—nonpublic information about its negotiated fee
agreements.” 	Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharms., Inc., No. EDCV 18-1882 JGB
(SHKx), 2023 WL 8168854, at *2 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2023), aff’d, No. 23-55451, 2025
WL 1111495 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025); see also TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-cv-
04545-HSG, 2015 WL 5116721, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015); Columbia Sportswear
N. Am., Inc. v. Serirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. 20-CV-709 JLS (JLB), 2022 WL
2798399, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022). The Court finds that the exact amounts, attorney
time, and the nature of fee arrangement is not crucial to the issues on this motion and thus
there is good cause to narrowly redact the documents as proposed by Arlo.1
Moving to Mr. Wright’s engagement letter, Arlo seeks to seal the complete copy of
engagement letter (Exhibit A to the Martin declaration) and portions of the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities and portions of the Martin and Baldwin declarations that
reference language from the agreement. 	Mot. at 7. 	A fee agreement is privileged under
1 As discussed further infra, the Court finds good cause for all proposed redactions in the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities and the Duvall declaration based on the fee arrangement, engagement letter,
and Pattern’s confidential information and strategy.
Case 3:25-cv-00516-JLS-BJW Document 88 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
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
California law. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6149 (“A written fee contract shall be deemed
to be a confidential communication . . . .”); Mandel v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., No. CV 20-
08564-SVW (RAOx), 2021 WL 4805306, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021). 	Such
documents are traditionally kept secret and thus should be sealed. See SCPS LLC v. Kind
L., No. CV 25-3255-MWF (SSCx), 2026 WL 96898, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026).
Although Arlo argues Mr. Wright affirmatively placed the engagement agreement at issue,
waiving privilege, the Court does not find the substance of the agreement dispositive to
resolve the motion to intervene.2 The Court finds good cause to seal and redact the
documents as proposed by Arlo.
Pattern seeks to seal entire Exhibits B, D, and G, and paragraphs 15, 17, and
19 of the Duvall declaration and portions of Exhibit J to the Duvall declaration. See Resp.
at 3, 4. 	Pattern argues these documents contain “confidential financial and business
strategy information” “which would harm Pattern if disclosed.” Resp. at 4. It is appropriate
to seal “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 	Nixon,
435 U.S. at 598; see also In re Koninklijke Philips Pat. Litig., No. 18-CV-01885-HSG,
2019 WL 2359206, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2019) (finding good cause to seal documents
related to a party’s “business operations and technology”) (collecting cases); Champion
Power Equip. Inc., 2025 WL 992005, at *2. 	The Court also finds that the request to seal
is narrowly tailored as Pattern limits redactions to specific information or documents where
“confidential information permeates the whole of [the] exhibits.” Resp. at 7. Specifically,
Pattern proposes a redacted version of Exhibit J as an alternative to sealing the entire
document as proposed by Arlo. Resp. at 7; ECF No. 87. The Court finds good cause to
seal Exhibits B, D, and G to the Duvall declaration, and to redact paragraphs 15, 17, and
19 of the Duvall declaration as proposed by Arlo. 	The Court also finds good cause to
redact Exhibit J to the Duvall declaration as proposed by Pattern (ECF No. 87).
2 The question of waiver may be different on Mr. Wright’s expected Motion to Disqualify Counsel. The
Court reserves determination until that issue is before it.
Case 3:25-cv-00516-JLS-BJW Document 88 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-CV-516 JLS (BJW)
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
The Court finds neither Arlo nor Pattern takes a position regarding the sealing or
redaction of Exhibits A, H, I, K, N of the Duvall declaration beyond referencing the
protective order. See Mot. at 6–7; Resp. at 3. 	An existing protective order is not in itself
automatic grounds for subsequently granting leave to file documents under seal. 	See
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (first citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138; then citing Beckman
Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475–76 (9th Cir. 1992)). 	Further, without a
reason supporting good cause, the Court cannot determine if redaction would suffice to
protect the Parties’ interest instead of sealing the entire document. 	Thus, the burden of
establishing that good cause exists to deals the documents in question has not been met.
CONCLUSION
In 	light 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	IN 	PART 	Defendant 	and
Counterclaimant’s Application to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 80). The
Clerk of Court SHALL FILE under seal the proposed seal-lodged documents (ECF Nos.
81, 81-1, 81-2, 81-3, 81-4).
Plaintiff SHALL FILE a redacted version of Exhibit J to the Duvall declaration
within seven (7) days of the electronic docketing of this Order.
Should either Party elect to file a renewed Motion to Seal, it SHALL FILE a
renewed motion within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Parties
should consider carefully what information meets the good cause reason standard necessary
for sealing and make a specific showing thereof.
Defendant SHALL FILE on the public docket unredacted versions of Exhibits A,
H, I, K, and N of the Duvall declaration upon expiration of the fourteen (14) days deadline
to file a renewed motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00516-JLS-BJW Document 88 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5