ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 17, 2014 TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL

BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., et al. ("Amazon") bring this motion to redact portions of the transcript from a technology tutorial held before this Court on December 17, 2014. Dkt. No. 194. Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Telebuyer, LLC, does not oppose the motion. Having reviewed the motion together with all relevant materials, the Court will GRANT the motion. The reasons for the Court's decision are set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

On December 17, 2014, the parties presented a tutorial to the Court describing the technology at issue in this lawsuit. Amazon moves this Court to redact portions of the transcript from the tutorial that it alleges contain "highly confidential information," the disclosure of which "would lead to competitive harm" from third parties. Dkt. No. 194 at 3. Amazon further asserts that the proposed "[r]edactions were selected to limit the information withheld from public view to only the exact statements made during the technology tutorial that Amazon considers to be `Confidential Information'" under the agreed upon Protective Order entered in this case. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

There is a strong presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial records. In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). The party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome this presumption, which can be done by demonstrating "compelling reasons" for sealing the document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In this Circuit, "`compelling 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 improper purposes,' such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). In Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court established that "the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute," and, in particular, "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.

Here, Amazon seeks to redact portions of the transcript that "discuss confidential technical information, including internal processes and algorithms." Dkt. No. 194 at 2. This is precisely the type of information that falls within the definition of "trade secrets." A "trade secret may consist of 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." Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b; see also Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (adopting the Restatement definition). This Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds that the excerpts are limited to only that information which may reasonably constitute a trade secret. Therefore, the Court finds that Amazon has demonstrated a compelling reason for redacting the transcript.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Amazon's motion and ORDERS that the transcript from the December 17, 2014 hearing be redacted as follows: