Filed: May 23, 2019
Latest Update: May 23, 2019
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 280, 281] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' omnibus motion to seal exhibits that had been filed under seal previously. Docket No. 280; see also Docket No. 281 (sealed version). 1 No response was filed. 2 The Court may seal the underlying exhibit upon a particularized showing of good cause. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as st
Summary: Order [Docket Nos. 280, 281] NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' omnibus motion to seal exhibits that had been filed under seal previously. Docket No. 280; see also Docket No. 281 (sealed version). 1 No response was filed. 2 The Court may seal the underlying exhibit upon a particularized showing of good cause. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as sta..
More
Order
[Docket Nos. 280, 281]
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' omnibus motion to seal exhibits that had been filed under seal previously. Docket No. 280; see also Docket No. 281 (sealed version).1 No response was filed.2 The Court may seal the underlying exhibit upon a particularized showing of good cause. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated below.
This motion relates to a number of exhibits that have been filed. For several of the exhibits, Defendants no longer seek an order allowing sealing and have now filed them on the public docket. See Docket No. 280 at 4-7; see also Docket Nos. 280-5, 280-6, 280-8, 280-9, 280-10, 280-11, 280-12, 280-13, 280-14, 280-16, 280-17, 280-18, 280-19, and 280-22 (publicly filed exhibits). Accordingly, with respect to these exhibits there is no longer a need for judicial review as they are now publicly available, so this aspect of the motion is DENIED as moot.
For several other exhibits, Defendants seek permission for partial redactions that mirror redactions previously allowed by the Court for the same information. See Docket No. 280 at 3-7; see also Docket No. 280-1, 280-2, 280-3, 280-4, 280-7, 280-15, 280-20, and 280-21 (redacted versions filed on the public docket). The information at issue was the subject of prior orders. See Docket Nos. 177, 186. For the reasons previously provided, good cause exists for these redactions. Accordingly, this aspect of the motion is GRANTED.
For the two remaining exhibits, Defendants seek permission for partial redactions on which the Court has not previously ruled. See Docket No. 280 at 5, 6; see also Docket Nos. 280-7 and 280-20 (redacted versions filed on the public docket). With respect to the first exhibit, Defendants indicate that the redacted information relates to private, strategic information related to planning, internal governance, and the organizing process, the disclosure of which might harm Defendants' competitive standing. See Docket No. 280 at 5; see also Docket No. 280-23 at 16. With respect to the second exhibit, Defendants indicate that the redacted information relates to details regarding membership density, organizing efforts, and strategic advice, the disclosure of which might harm Defendants' competitive standing. See Docket No. 280 at 6; see also Docket No. 280-23 at 15. Good cause exists for these redactions. Accordingly, this aspect of the motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
