Filed: Aug. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 639] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint administrative motion to file under seal portions of the pretrial conference transcript (ECF 621), the Court's order re motions in limine (ECF 625), and the Court's order re motion to quash (ECF 627). ECF 639. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to
Summary: ORDER GRANTING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 639] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint administrative motion to file under seal portions of the pretrial conference transcript (ECF 621), the Court's order re motions in limine (ECF 625), and the Court's order re motion to quash (ECF 627). ECF 639. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to ..
More
ORDER GRANTING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 639]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' joint administrative motion to file under seal portions of the pretrial conference transcript (ECF 621), the Court's order re motions in limine (ECF 625), and the Court's order re motion to quash (ECF 627). ECF 639. 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 the parties' sealing motion and the declarations of the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below:
ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reason(s) for Sealing
621 July 19, Google:
2019 68:12-13 (between GRANTED. Contains information
Pretrial "mentioned" and "in related to confidential
Conference fact"); 84:1 (entire internal business
Transcript line); 85:18-19 documents, finances,
(between "example" and valuations. Henry
and "what"); Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 639-1.
Public disclosure of
this information would
cause harm to
Defendants. Id.
93:18-22 (between "in" Contains Google's
and end of paragraph); confidential business
94:7 (between "of the" strategy and references
and "that"); 94:13 to confidential
(between "this" and projects. Henry Decl.
"to"); 94:17-20 (entire ¶ 5. Public disclosure
lines); 94:21-22 of this information
(between "about" and could expose Google
"that's"); 95:2 (start to to competitive harm by
"what); 95:3-6 third parties and impair
("accomplish" to end of Google's business
paragraph); 95:19 development efforts.
(between "this" and Id. Substantially
"and"); 95:21 (start to similar information
"and"); 96:6-7 ("by" to was previously
end of paragraph); redacted by the Court
96:12 (between "this" (ECF 617 at 2).
and "which"); 96:13
(start to "which");
97:13-14 (between
"that" and "and");
97:21-22 (last sentence
of paragraph)
Space Data: GRANTED. This information
67:20-21 (dollar reveals confidential
amounts) financial information
68:5 (dollar amounts) pertaining to the costs
74:5 (dollar amounts) of researching and
79:18 (between "worth" developing Space
and "that") Data's balloon
87:25 (between "for" constellation
and "which") technology. See
Germinario Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 639-2. Similar
cost information was
sealed by the Court in
ECF 543.
Public disclosure of the
information Space
Data requests be sealed
would likely place
Space Data at a
competitive
disadvantage, and risks
grave economic harm.
See Germinario Decl. ¶
7.
ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reason(s) for Sealing
625 July 23, Google:
2019 Order 3:19 (between "a" and GRANTED. Contains information
re Motions "to Google's"); 3:25 related to Google's
in Limine (between "a" and "too onfidential access
Google's"); 3:26 logs. Henry Decl. ¶ 6.
(between "that" and Public disclosure of
"constitutes"); 4:7-8 this information would
(between "to" and cause harm to
"Space Data"; 4:8-9 Defendants. Id.
(between "fact that" and Substantially similar
"See"; 4:21 (between information was
"respect to" and "— previously redacted by
Google"); 4:22 the Court. ECF 617 at
(between "that" and 2.
"evidence")
8:12 (name of project); Contains Google's
8:13-15 (between confidential business
"evidence that" and See strategy and references
MIL4"; 8:16 (between to confidential
"Google's" and projects. Henry Decl.
ellipses); 8:17 (between ¶ 7. Public disclosure
"evidence that" and of this information
"relates"); 8:21 (content could expose Google
of brackets); 8:25-26 to competitive harm by
(between "Google's" third parties and impair
and "wholly"); 8:27 Google's business
(between "concerning" development efforts.
and "that relates"); 9:3-4 Id. Substantially
(between "explaining similar information
its" and end of was previously
sentence); 9:6 (between redacted by the Court.
"Google's" and ECF 617 at 2.
"including")
Space Data: This information
7:12-13 (dollar amount) GRANTED. reveals confidential
financial information
pertaining to the costs
of researching and
developing Space
Data's balloon
constellation
technology. See
Germinario Decl. ¶ 6.
Similar cost
information was sealed
by the Court in ECF
543.
Public disclosure of the
information Space
Data requests be sealed
would likely place
Space Data at a
competitive
disadvantage, and risks
grave economic harm.
See Germinario Decl. ¶
7.
ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Result Reason(s) for Sealing
627 July 23, Google:
2019 Order 2:24-25 (between GRANTED. Contains confidential
re Motion "involvement in" and details related to
to Quash "See"; 3:24 (between Google's internal
"Mr. Page" and "and if business operations,
so"; 4:2 (start to "and including how it
that"); 4:4-5 (between evaluates potential
"Mr. Page" and "is in ventures and
dispute"); 4:6-7 (quoted partnerships and
language); 4:8-9 internal work
(quoted language) processes. Henry
Decl. ¶ 8. Public
disclosure of this
information would
cause harm to
Defendants. Id.
Substantially similar
information was
previously redacted by
the Court. ECF 630 at
3.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the joint sealing motion at ECF 639 is GRANTED. The parties are instructed to file the appropriately redacted versions of the documents on the public docket on or before August 12, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
