LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 196

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Application to File Under Seal by Judge Gary A. Feess: Court DENIES, in part, as moot LegalZoom's application to file underseal regarding: (1) its Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom's Motion to Supplement the Factual Record; and (2) Exhibits A-C and E to Fred Heather's Declaration 164 . Additionally, the Court DENIES as moot both of Rocket Lawyer's Applications to file under seal unredacted versions of: (1) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer's Motion to Supplement the Factual Record in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Exhibits A-C to the Declaration of Michael T. Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer's Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Application to File a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record; and (3) Rocket Lawyer's Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Application to File a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record. LegalZoom's Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions appears to contain confidential information. Additionally, this motion was not mooted by the Court's 11/10/14 Order and contains quotations and references to a document previously ordered filed under seal by this Court. (See Docket No. 150 [10/10/14Order] (granting Rocket Lawyer's application to file under seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer's Opposition to LegalZoom's Motion to Supplement the Record).) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part LegalZoom's application to file under seal regarding LegalZoom's Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. For those documents that the Court declines to file under seal, the Parties are instructed to contact the Court Clerk to either (1) arrange to pick up those materials they requested be filed or (2) inform the Court that it may destroy the documents. See document for details. (smo)

LINK:164, 167, 194
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

December 8, 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 (“LegalZoom”). (Docket No. 164 [LZ Appl.].) By this application,
LegalZoom seeks to file under seal unredacted versions of: (1) its Reply Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions; (2) its Reply
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom’s Motion to Supplement the
Factual Record; and (3) Exhibits A-C and E to Fred Heather’s Declaration in Support of
LegalZoom’s Motion to Supplement the Factual Record. (Id. at 2.) LegalZoom 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,
the substance of certain depositions which Rocket Lawyer designated to be ‘attorneys’ eyes
only, and other confidential business information and other sensitive business data relating to
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated.” (Id.)
The Court also has two pending applications submitted by Defendant Rocket Lawyer
Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”). (Docket No. 167 [RL Appl.]; Docket No. 194 [RL Second
Appl.].) In these applications, Rocket Lawyer is seeking to file under seal unredacted versions
of: (1) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Motion to
Supplement the Factual Record in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (RL Appl. at 2);
(2) Exhibits A-C to the Declaration of Michael T. Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Reply in
Support of its Ex Parte Application to File a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record (RL
Second Appl. at 2); and (3) Rocket Lawyer’s Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Application to File
a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record (Id.). Rocket Lawyer urges that good cause exists to
seal these documents because they are “excerpts from the transcripts of depositions conducted in
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK:164, 167, 194
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

December 8, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

this case, which are designated ‘Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ . . . . [t]he
Unredacted Reply draws on these excerpts . . . . these documents are subject to the Court’s
protective order and their sealing is necessary in order to protect confidential business
information and other sensitive business data relating to LegalZoom.” (Id.)
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
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.
After a status conference, this Court issued an order granting the Parties’ stipulation
regarding scheduling and providing for some additional discovery. (Docket No. 190 [11/10/14
Order].) The scheduling order was amended to set the following dates: (1) close of the limited
renewed discovery on January 16, 2015; (2) supplementation of the summary judgment record
by February 2, 2015; and (3) hearings on the cross-motions for summary judgment on February
23, 2015. (Id. at 1.) Thereby, the Parties’ motions to supplement the record in support of the
cross-motions for summary judgment were mooted.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, in part, as moot LegalZoom’s application to file under
seal regarding: (1) its Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom’s
Motion to Supplement the Factual Record; and (2) Exhibits A-C and E to Fred Heather’s
Declaration. Additionally, the Court DENIES as moot both of Rocket Lawyer’s Applications to
file under seal unredacted versions of: (1) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michael Jones in
Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Motion to Supplement the Factual Record in Support of its Motion
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK:164, 167, 194
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

December 8, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

for Summary Judgment; (2) Exhibits A-C to the Declaration of Michael T. Jones in Support of
Rocket Lawyer’s Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Application to File a Motion to Supplement
the Factual Record; and (3) Rocket Lawyer’s Reply in Support of its Ex Parte Application to File
a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record.
LegalZoom’s Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of LegalZoom’s
Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions appears to contain confidential information. Additionally, this
motion was not mooted by the Court’s 11/10/14 Order and contains quotations and references to
a document previously ordered filed under seal by this Court. (See Docket No. 150 [10/10/14
Order] (granting Rocket Lawyer’s application to file under seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of
Michael Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion to
Supplement the Record).) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part LegalZoom’s application
to file under seal regarding LegalZoom’s Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of LegalZoom’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.
For those documents that the Court declines to file under seal, the Parties are
instructed to contact the Court Clerk to either (1) arrange to pick up those materials they
requested be filed 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