LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 135

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Gary A. Feess: The Court is currently in receipt of an application to file under seal, submitted by Plaintiff LegaZoon.com ("LegalZoom"). (Docket No. 132[Appl.].) Legal Zoom seeks to supplement the factual record in opposition to Rocket Lawyer's Motion for Summary Judgment with unredacted documents Legal Zoom has recently become aware of that were not previously included in Legal Zoom's filings, unredacted versions of the Motion to Supplement the Factual Record, portions of Barak Vaughn's declaration describing Exhibits L-Q to his declaration and Exhibits L-Q themselves. (Id.at 2.) Legal Zoom urges that good cause exists to seal these documents because they are "subject to the Court's protective order and the sealing of these documents is necessary in order to protect information that Rocket Lawyer has designated as 'confidential' or 'attorneys' eye only,' including without limitation, confidential business information and other sensitive business data relating to Rocket Lawyer Incorporated." (Id.) For reasons given below, Legal Zoom's application to file the documents under seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 125 , 132 (bp)

LINK: 125, 132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 2, 2014

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

The Court is currently in receipt of an application to file under seal, submitted by Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com (“Legal Zoom”). (Docket No. 132 [Appl.].) Legal Zoom seeks to supplement
the factual record in opposition to Rocket Lawyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment with
unredacted documents Legal Zoom has recently become aware of that were not previously
included in Legal Zoom’s filings, unredacted versions of the Motion to Supplement the Factual
Record, portions of Barak Vaughn’s declaration describing Exhibits L-Q to his declaration and
Exhibits L-Q themselves. (Id. at 2.) Legal Zoom urges that good cause exists to seal these
documents because they are “subject to the Court’s protective order and the sealing of these
documents is necessary in order to protect information that Rocket Lawyer has designated as
‘confidential’ or ‘attorneys’ eyes only,’ including without limitation, confidential business
information and other sensitive business data relating to Rocket Lawyer Incorporated.” (Id.)
For the reasons given below, Legal Zoom’s application to file the documents under seal is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
While courts customarily allow the parties to establish ground rules for designating
material as confidential for discovery purposes, the Court does not cede to them ultimate
authority or responsibility over the sealing of documents. Thus, the fact that certain information
may fall within the ambit of the parties’ protective order is of limited importance to the Court in
determining whether or not an application to seal should be granted. The public has a “general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents” because it has an interest in “keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public
agencies.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98 (1978). A “strong
presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including
motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK: 125, 132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 2, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to
seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” (Id.)
In light of the “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” a party should not
request that an entire document be filed under seal unless the document’s entire contents are
confidential. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Instead, a party should redact those portions of
the document that are confidential. The redacted copy should then be filed on the public docket
and an unredacted copy should be provided to the Court.
As described above, Legal Zoom’s request includes supplementing the factual record in
opposition to Rocket Lawyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment with unredacted documents
Legal Zoom has recently become aware of that were not previously included in Legal Zoom’s
filings, unredacted versions of the Motion to Supplement the Factual Record, portions of Barak
Vaughn’s declaration describing Exhibits L-Q to his declaration and Exhibits L-Q themselves.
(Appl. at 2.) Legal Zoom has filed a redacted version of its Motion to Supplement the Factual
Record and the declaration of Barak Vaughn on the public docket. (See Docket No. 126 at
Exhibit 1 [Redacted Motion to Supplement Factual Record]; Id. at Exhibit 3 [Redacted Decl. of
Barak Vaughn].) The Court finds that the redacted portions of the motion and Exhibits L-N and
Exhibit Q to the Declaration of Barak Vaughn appear to be comprised mostly of confidential
information. However, the same cannot be said of Exhibit O, which is an internal email
communication at Rocket Lawyer, and Exhibit P, which is an external communication between
Rocket Lawyer and an employee at Google involved in performing services for Rocket Lawyer.
(See Redacted Decl. of Barak Vaughn at Exhibit O and Exhibit P.) These exhibits are not
confidential or subject to the Parties’ protective order. Legal Zoom has not attempted to file a
redacted version of Exhibit O or Exhibit P that eliminates the supposed confidential information.
Instead, Legal Zoom seeks to file the entirety of Exhibit O and Exhibit P under seal, and as
discussed above, in light of the “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” a party should
not request that an entire document be filed under seal unless the document’s entire contents are
confidential. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. While Exhibit O and Exhibit P’s contents are
potentially embarrassing, it does not appear that they are confidential.
Because Exhibits L-N and Q appear to contain confidential information, the application to
file them and any reference to them in the Motion to Supplement the Factual Record or in Barak
Vaughn’s declaration under seal is GRANTED. However, the application to file the entirety of
Exhibit O and Exhibit P and any reference to them in the Motion to Supplement the Factual
Record or in Barak Vaughn’s declaration under seal is DENIED. Should Legal Zoom wish to
submit another application to seal Exhibit O and Exhibit P, it should either appropriately redact
the exhibits or explain why such redaction is impracticable. Defendant is instructed to contact
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK: 125, 132
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 2, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

the Court Clerk to either (1) arrange to pick up the materials it requested be filed under
seal or (2) inform the Court that it may destroy the documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3