LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Filing
63
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Application to File Under Seal by Judge Gary A. Feess: Because Defendant's unredacted motion for summary judgment and exhibits F through L to the Declaration of Hong-An Vu appear to contain confidential information, the application to file them under seal 62 is GRANTED. However, the application to file the entirety of the separate statement of undisputed facts under seal is DENIED. Should Defendant wish to submit another application to seal the separate statement of undisputed facts, it should either appropriately redact the document or explain why such redaction is impracticable. Defendant is instructed to contact 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. See document for details. (smo)
LINK: 62
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
July 11, 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
Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Defendant”). (Docket No. 62 [Appl.].) Defendant
seeks to file, in conjunction with its motion for summary judgment, unredacted versions of the
motion itself, exhibits F-L to the Declaration of Hong-An Vu, and its separate statement of
undisputed facts. (Id. at 2.) Defendant 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 . . . confidential business information and other sensitive business
data relating to [Defendant].” (Id.) For the reasons given below, Defendant’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
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.)
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
LINK: 62
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)
Title
Date
July 11, 2014
LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
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, Defendant’s request includes unredacted versions of its motion for
summary judgment, separate statement of undisputed facts, and several exhibits to the
Declaration of Hong-An Vu. (Appl. at 2.) Defendant has filed a redacted version of its motion
for summary judgment on the public docket. (See Docket No. 60 [Redacted Motion for
Summary Judgment].) The Court finds that the redacted portions of the motion and the exhibits
to the Declaration of Hong-An Vu appear to be comprised mostly of confidential information.
However, the same cannot be said of the separate statement of undisputed facts, which appears
to include many facts that are not confidential or subject to the Parties’ protective order.
Defendant has not attempted to electronically file a redacted version of the separate statement of
undisputed facts that eliminates the confidential information, as it did with the motion for
summary judgment. Instead, Defendant seeks to file the entire statement of undisputed facts
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. It does not
appear that the entire contents of the separate statement of undisputed facts are confidential.
Because Defendant’s unredacted motion for summary judgment and exhibits F through L
to the Declaration of Hong-An Vu appear to contain confidential information, the application to
file them under seal is GRANTED. However, the application to file the entirety of the separate
statement of undisputed facts under seal is DENIED. Should Defendant wish to submit another
application to seal the separate statement of undisputed facts, it should either appropriately
redact the document or explain why such redaction is impracticable. Defendant is instructed to
contact 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 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?