Kairy et al v. Supershuttle International et al

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING REVISED MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/10/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROOSEVELT KAIRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING REVISED MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE No. C 08-02993 JSW United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal portions of several documents under seal. On February 25, 2009, Defendants submitted the declaration of Andre Y. Bates in support of Plaintiff's motion to seal. The Court issued an order denying the motion to seal without prejudice for failure to provide a specific request that establishes that the portions of the documents alleged to be privileged or protectable is narrowly tailored to seek the sealing of only sealable material. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). On March 3, 2009, Defendants submitted a revised declaration indicating the specific portions of the documents alleged to be sealable. The matter is now ripe for consideration. Instead of seeking to have the original exhibits sealed in their entirety, Defendants now specify the particular portions they wish to designate as sealable. However, beside the repeated refrain that the portions sought to be sealed contain confidential, proprietary business information and were marked `confidential' by SuperShuttle, Defendants' revised declaration fails to state any compelling reason why the information contained in the portions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 of the documents are privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under law. The revised declaration suffers from the same defect as its former iteration in that there is no argument that the documents were kept confidential or that the portions disputed "consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." Electronic Arts, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, Northern District of California , 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569, 2008 WL 4726222, *2 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point and the party seeking to seal a document must overcome the presumption by demonstrating compelling reasons for sealing the document).. Accordingly, the Court again DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' administrative motion to seal. This ruling is without prejudice to Defendants submitting yet another declaration specifically identifying those specific portions of the documents that contain confidential information and indicating whether the each cited portion of the documents satisfy the test for filing under seal. Again, Defendants must file in the public record a redacted version of the documents, omitting only that material which is confidential. Should Defendants fail to make a sufficient showing for designation portions of any documents under seal by March 13, 2009, the documents shall be filed in the public record. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 10, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?