Filed: Feb. 25, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2020
Summary: ORDER GRANTING SYNCHRONOSS' RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 516 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Synchronoss' renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 516. Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Summary: ORDER GRANTING SYNCHRONOSS' RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 516 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Synchronoss' renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 516. Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of H..
More
ORDER GRANTING SYNCHRONOSS' RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 516
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Synchronoss' renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 516. Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). This requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Synchronoss has provided good cause for sealing a single line in Synchronoss' Opposition to Dropbox's motion for attorney's fees because it contains reference to confidential business information relating to the operations of Plaintiff. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). The Court originally denied Synchronoss' motion to seal this specific potion since it is a citation to a public regulation. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the disclosure of the regulation inherently discloses the subject matter of the confidential material that it later found sealable in the argument of the brief. See Dkt. No. 513 at 8-9 (sealing page 18, line 20 of the opposition, which cites the same regulation). The renewed motion thus seeks uniformity in the ruling and the Court agrees that sealing this limited portion is appropriate.
The Court finds good cause to seal the single line identified by Synchronoss and GRANTS the renewed motion to seal.
Document Number Portions Sought to be Designating Ruling
Public/(Sealed) Sealed Party
450/(449-4) Page vii, line 7 Synchronoss GRANT
IT IS SO ORDERED.
