Filed: Aug. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 73] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal a small portion of an exhibit to Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 53-5). ECF 73. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 73] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal a small portion of an exhibit to Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 53-5). ECF 73. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents...
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 73]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal a small portion of an exhibit to Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 53-5). ECF 73. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's sealing motion and its declaration in support thereof. The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated compelling reasons to seal the requested portion of the submitted document. The proposed redaction is narrowly tailored. The Court's ruling on the sealing request is set forth below:
ECF Document Portion(s) Result Reason(s) for Sealing
to Seal
53-5 Exhibit 4 to the 8:5-8 GRANTED. The document contains a list
Declaration of of third parties to whom
Luc Poynt has disclosed one or
Dahlin In more of its trade secrets.
Support of This list reveals the identity
Defendant of certain entities with
Innowi, Inc.'s whom Poynt has
Motion to collaborated. The fact of
Dismiss that collaboration is not
Pursuant to public knowledge and is, in
F.R.C.P. many cases, covered by
12(b)(6) and NonDisclosure Agreements.
Motion to Strike The publication of this
Pursuant to information would be
F.R.C.P. 12(f) harmful to Poynt as it would
permit Poynt's competitors
and/or others access to
information about its
collaborators and potential
collaborators, and thereby
gain an unfair competitive
advantage in developing
competing products. Tanaka
Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 73-1.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 73 is GRANTED. Defendant shall file a properly redacted version of the document consistent with this order into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
