Filed: Jul. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTION BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal portions of its third amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 143. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Ka
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTION BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal portions of its third amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 143. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kam..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SEALING MOTION
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file under seal portions of its third amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 143. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.
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.
However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must 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
Because the sealing motion relates to the filing of an amended complaint, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
ECF Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
143-8 Third Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions designated by
Complaint to all Plaintiff contain technical proprietary
highlighted confidential information, including Space
portions, Data's trade secrets, as well as confidential
except those at financial and business information that is
¶¶ 197, 198, competitively sensitive. See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶
201, 202, 203, 5-7, ECF 143-1.
and 204, As to the highlighted portions designated by
which are Google as confidential, Google only seeks to
DENIED. seal the highlighted portions at ¶¶ 199, 200,
and 234 but not others. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 5,
ECF 155-1. Those portions contain
confidential information, including budget and
research development plans, disclosure of
which could harm Google's business. Id. ¶¶
5-6.
143-9 Exhibit C to the GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
143-10 Third Amended proprietary confidential information, including
143-11 Complaint Space Data's trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
143-12 ¶¶ 5-6, ECF 143-1.
143-13
143-14 Exhibit D to the GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
Third Amended proprietary confidential information, including
Complaint Space Data's trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
¶ 6, ECF 143-1.
143-15 Exhibit H to the GRANTED. The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
143-16 Third Amended proprietary confidential information, including
143-17 Complaint Space Data's trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
143-18 ¶ 6, ECF 143-1.
143-19
143-20
143-21
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 143 is GRANTED, except as to the highlighted portions at ¶¶ 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, and 204 of the third amended complaint, which are DENIED. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a revised redacted version of the third amended complaint that comports with the Court's order into the public record within 7 days from the filing of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
