Anza Technology, Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc.,

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/18/17: 12 Request to Seal Document(s) is DENIED without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

CIV. NO. 2:17-00656 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

v.
MUSHKIN, INC., a Colorado
Corporation, d/b/a MUSHKIN
ENHANCED MFG,

17

Defendant.

18
19
----oo0oo----

20

Anza Technology, Inc. brought this action against

21
22

Mushkin, Inc. for patent infringement.

Before the court is

23

defendant’s Request to File Documents Under Seal filed August 14,

24

2017.

(Docket No. 12.)
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

25
26

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

27

access.

28

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
Where a party seeks to seal a dispositive
1

1

pleading and a related attachment, the party must “articulate

2

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

3

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

4

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding

5

the judicial process.”

6

court then must balance the competing interests of the public and

7

the party seeking to keep records secret.

8
9

Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted).

The

Id. at 1179.

Defendant moves to seal an “Asset Purchase and Note
Agreement” in support of its Motion to Dismiss, stating that it

10

is highly confidential and contains proprietary information, that

11

sealing is necessary to protect its privacy rights and the

12

privacy rights of a third party, and that sealing such record

13

will not prejudice plaintiff.

14

While trade secrets may justify filing documents under

15

seal, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, it is not clear how an

16

asset purchase agreement is a trade secret.

17

sealing this entire document may prevent it from being used “as

18

sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

19

competitive standing,” see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,

20

434 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), or how disclosure of the document would

21

invade defendant’s or a third party’s privacy.

22

request is even less convincing here, where defendant’s unsealed

23

Motion to Dismiss specifically references the transaction

24

memorialized in the document it wishes to seal.

25

this information may prevent the public from understanding the

26

basis upon which the court makes its decisions, and defendant

27

fails to explain how its harm outweighs public policies favoring

28

disclosure.

Nor is it clear how

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
2

Defendant’s

Further, sealing

1

Given the public policies favoring disclosure and

2

defendant’s failure to show compelling reasons to seal the

3

document at issue, the request will be denied.

4

consider a more tailored request, such as redacting a portion of

5

the Asset Purchase and Note Agreement, which specifically states

6

the basis for sealing or redacting this document and why

7

defendant’s harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

8
9

The court may

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Request to
Seal (Docket No. 12) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

10

prejudice.

11

Dated:

August 18, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3