Filed: Jun. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 538 [Re: ECF 538] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal exhibits to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file motion reconsideration. ECF 538. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 538 [Re: ECF 538] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal exhibits to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file motion reconsideration. ECF 538. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records a..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 538
[Re: ECF 538]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal exhibits to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file motion reconsideration. ECF 538. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 Plaintiff's sealing motion and the declaration of the designating party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Google, the designating party, has articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
538-4 Ex. A to Motion for GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Leave (Motion for request: information about the design
Reconsid eration) • 1:13 (remainder of the and operation of Loon's
sentence after "Google's"), navigational systems and its
• 2:13 (after "Loon" and source code. Bruns
before "i.e."), Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 546-1.
• 3:4-5 (after "Loon" and Public disclosure would
before "one relative"), expose Google to
• 3:6-7 (parenthetical competitive harm. Id.
spanning these lines),
• 3:8-10 (quotation spanning
these lines),
• 3:13 (after "Space Data's"
and before "evidence"),
• 3:15 (after "Space Data's"
and before "evidence"),
• 3:17 (after "that" and before
"was immaterial"),
• 3:24 (after "upon" and
before "evidence"),
• 3:26 (both parentheticals),
• 4:2-3 (remainder of the
sentence after "Google's"),
• 4:6-7 (entire lines),
• 4:8 (first four words),
• 4:10-11 (parenthetical
spanning these lines),
• 4:15 (remainder of the
sentence after "just its"),
• 4:16 (parenthetical
following "287-282"),
• 4:17: (parenthetical
following "371"),
• 4:21-25 (entire block quote),
• 5:6-10 (parenthetical
spanning these lines),
• 5:11-12 (sentence spanning
these lines), and
• 5:25-6:3 (parenthetical
spanning these lines).
DENIED as to the remainder. Google, the designating
party, does not seek to seal
the remaining identified
portions.
538-6 Ex. B to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: Slides 27 & 29 information about Loon's
technical details. Bruns
Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 546-1. This
information contains
references to information
previously sealed by the
Court. Id.
538-8 Ex. C to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: Entire document. information about Loon's
technical details. Bruns
Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 546-1. This
information is the same as
information previously
sealed by the Court. Id.
538-10 Ex. D to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: Page 46, lines 3-6. information about the design
and operation of Loon's
navigational systems. Bruns
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 546-1. This
information is the same as
information previously
sealed by the Court. Id.
538-12 Ex. E to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: The highlighted information about Loon's
portions of ¶¶ 4-5; diagram technical details. Bruns
above ¶ 301; and ¶ 308 (not Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 546-1. This
including footnotes 556 and information is the same as
557). information previously
sealed by the Court. Id.
DENIED as to the remainder. Google, the designating
party, does not seek to seal
the remaining identified
portions.
538-14 Ex. F to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: All except information about Loon's
¶¶ 283-286 & ¶ 290. technical details. Bruns
Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 546-1. This
information is the same as
information previously
sealed by the Court. Id.
538-16 Ex. G to Hosie Decl. to GRANTED as to Google's Contains confidential
Motion for Leave request: same portions that information about Loon's
were previously sealed. technical details. Bruns
Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 546-1. This
information is the same as
information previously
sealed by the Court. Id.
538-18 Ex. H to Hosie Decl. to DENIED. Google, the designating
Motion for Leave party, does not seek to seal
this document.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to seal at ECF 538. For any request that has been denied and the properly unredacted or lesser redacted document consistent with this order has not been filed, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
