RIMINI STREET INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF RIMINI STREET, INC.'S ANSWER TO ORACLE'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

C.W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order governing confidentiality of documents entered by the Court on May 18, 2015 (Dkt. 58, "Protective Order"), Local Rules 10-5(b) and 16.1-4, and Rules 5.2 and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and counterdefendant Rimini Street Inc. and counterdefendant Seth Ravin (collectively, "Rimini"), respectfully move this Court to grant leave to file under seal portions of Rimini's Answer to Oracle's Second Amended Counterclaims (the "Answer"). A public, redacted version of the Answer was filed on November 10, 2016, and an unredacted version will subsequently be filed under seal with the Court.

The Protective Order provides that: "Counsel for any Designating Party may designate any Discovery Material as `Confidential Information' or `Highly Confidential Information — Attorneys' Eyes Only' under the terms of this Protective Order only if such counsel in good faith believes that such Discovery Material contains such information and is subject to protection under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c). The designation by any Designating Party of any Discovery Material as `Confidential Information' or `Highly Confidential Information — Attorneys' Eyes Only' shall constitute a representation that any attorney for the Designating Party reasonably believes there is a valid basis for such designation." Protective Order ¶ 2 (emphasis added).

Rimini requests that the Court seal portions of Rimini's Answer because: (1) it cites information from Oracle America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively, "Oracle")'s discovery responses or document productions that Oracle has designated as "Confidential Information" or "Highly Confidential Information — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the terms of the Protective Order; and (2) the document contains confidential information about Rimini's proprietary processes.

As to category (1), by designating the information Confidential or Highly Confidential, Oracle has represented that the information cited is subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Protective Order ¶ 2. Thus Rimini, as the filing party, requests that the portions of Rimini's Answer containing material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential be filed under seal. Rimini does not independently contend that these portions are subject to such protection, but makes this request as a courtesy to Oracle.

As to category (2), Rimini moves to seal portions of the document that disclose proprietary and highly sensitive details about how Rimini provides services to its clients. Disclosure of this proprietary information regarding how Rimini provides services to its clients would provide Rimini's competitors a direct competitive advantage, disclosing trade secrets that would allow Rimini's competitors to adopt methods that have made Rimini successful and more easily allow them to compete in the third-party software service marketplace. See Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 105793), at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2015) (granting motion to seal when documents "contain[ed] information that could injure Plaintiffs' competitive posture in the . . . industry"); Spectrum Pharm. Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 2014 WL 4202540, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2014) (granting motion to seal where documents contained "proprietary, business practice, trade secret, and technical information that could injure the parties' competitive posture"); Clark v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1006823, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2010) (granting motion to seal materials that would "bring attention to MetLife's confidential internal business deliberations, organization and capabilities."). Moreover, keeping these references under seal will not frustrate the public's visibility into the judicial process. Although Rimini has redacted certain descriptions of its processes, non-sensitive information contained in these documents remains unredacted. Thus Rimini respectfully moves to seal portions of its Answer.

Rimini has submitted all other portions of its Answer for filing in the Court's public files, which will allow public access to the filing except for the portions containing information that Oracle has designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential or that contain confidential information about Rimini's proprietary processes. Accordingly, this request to seal is narrowly tailored.

For the foregoing reasons, Oracle respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file under seal portions of Rimini's Answer.