Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS INC. v. CORELOGIC, INC., 5:14-cv-00761-PSG. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150618755 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL (Re: Docket Nos. 109, 113) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Before the court are two administrative motions to seal several documents. "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispos
More

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 109, 113)

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal several documents. "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point."2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3

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."4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing"7 that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed.8 "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice.9 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 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.11

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)."12 "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."13

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation to Seal 109 Boundary Solutions' Designations highlighted in Only sealed portions Opposition to Defendant's black at Docket No. 109-3 narrowly tailored to Motion for Leave to File SEALED EXCEPT page 2, confidential business Its Amended Counterclaim lines 2, 14 and 28 UNSEALED. information.14 109 Exhibit 1 to the Wecker SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 109 Exhibit 4 to the Wecker UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored Declaration to confidential business information. 109 Exhibit 5 to the Wecker UNSEALED. No declaration in Declaration support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 109 Exhibit 6 to the Wecker SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 109 Exhibit 7 to the Wecker SEALED. Narrowly tailored to Declaration confidential business information. 109 Exhibit 8 to the Wecker UNSEALED. Publicly filed at Declaration Docket No. 110-4. 109 Exhibit 9 to the Wecker UNSEALED. No declaration in Declaration support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 109 Exhibit 10 to the Wecker UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored Declaration to confidential business information. 109 Exhibit 11 to the Wecker UNSEALED. Not narrowly tailored Declaration to confidential business information. 109 Declaration of Dennis UNSEALED. No declaration in Klein support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 109 Exhibit 1 to the Klein UNSEALED. No declaration in Declaration support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 109 Exhibit 4 to the Klein UNSEALED. No declaration in Declaration support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 109 Exhibit 5 to the Klein UNSEALED. No declaration in Declaration support filed with the court as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 113 CoreLogic's Reply in UNSEALED. No declaration in Support of Motion for support filed with the Leave to Amend Its court as required by Answer to Plaintiff Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Boundary Solutions' Second Amended Complaint

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Kamakana v. City & County 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)).
2. Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
3. Id. at 1178-79.
4. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
5. See id. at 1180.
6. Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
7. Id.
8. 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).
9. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
11. 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.").
12. 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).
13. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
14. In the future, the parties shall comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D): "[t]he unredacted version must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version."
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer