Filed: Jan. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 378 [Re: ECF 378] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal their opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 378. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect an
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 378 [Re: ECF 378] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal their opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 378. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD "Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 378
[Re: ECF 378]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to seal their opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. ECF 378. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' 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.
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 Defendants' 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 one of the exhibits to Defendants' opposition brief. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below.
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
378-4 Google's Opposition to DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party,
Space Data's Motion for does not seek to seal any portion
Leave to File Fifth of this document. See Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint Response at 1, ECF 383.
378-5 Exhibit E to Kamber DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party,
Decl. i/s/o Google's does not seek to seal any portion
Opposition to Space of this document. See Plaintiff's
Data's Motion for Leave Response at 1, ECF 383.
to File Fifth Amended
Complaint
378-6 Exhibit G to Kamber GRANTED as to the Contains confidential and
Decl. i/s/o Google's portions marked by proprietary technical information
Opposition to Space Plaintiff, the designating relating to balloon coverage
Data's Motion for Leave party, at 16:18-22; simulations and assessing
to File Fifth Amended 17:3-6; 18:10. balloon/platform performance;
Complaint See ECF 383-1. contains sensitive financial
information. Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6,
ECF 383-2. Disclosure of this
information may cause serious
economic harm to Plaintiff. Id.
¶ 7.
DENIED as to the Plaintiff, the designating party,
remainder. does not seek to seal the
remainder. See Plaintiff's
Response at 1, ECF 383.
378-7 Exhibit P to Kamber DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party,
Decl. i/s/o Google's does not seek to seal any portion
Opposition to Space of this document. See Plaintiff's
Data's Motion for Leave Response at 1, ECF 383.
to File Fifth Amended
Complaint
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' sealing motion at ECF 378 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied in whole or in part, if the designating party has not already publicly submitted the properly redacted version of the documents, the submitting party shall 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
