Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al

Filing 375

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL DKT. NO. 368 by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 368 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
PLANTRONICS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL DKT. NO. 368

ALIPH, INC., et al,
Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 09-01714 WHA

In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.

17

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Judicial

18

records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access

19

by default. This is because the public has an interest in “understanding the judicial process” as

20

well as “keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.” Public access to judicial

21

operation is foundational to the functioning of the government.

22

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held

23

that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in

24

dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a

25

courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts

26

will be unduly compromised. Motions in limine are part of the trial and must likewise be laid

27

bare absent compelling reasons.

28

1

On February 12, the parties filed a joint administrative motion for leave to file under seal

2

portions of defendants’ motion in limine number 3, plaintiff’s opposition, and exhibit 6 to

3

plaintiff’s opposition (Dkt. No. 368). The request to seal exhibit 6 is GRANTED.

4

The request to seal the proposed redactions in defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s

5

opposition is DENIED. The only support proffered for sealing the proposed redactions is that the

6

briefs contain “confidential references to Plantronics contractual negotiations with a non-party to

7

this case” (Parker Decl. ¶¶ 4–5). No other justification is provided. No declarations from the

8

third-party, or even Plantronics were submitted.

9

The parties chose to avail themselves to the public court system to resolve their disputes.
Their disputes include the admissibility of an offer plaintiff made to a third-party. This order

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

will not shield the name of the third-party contained in the parties’ briefs. The parties are also

12

advised that absent compelling reasons, the upcoming trial shall occur in open court. By NOON

13

ON FEBRUARY 21,

the parties shall re-file their briefs in accordance with this order.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: February 18, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2