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
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?