Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 415


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 13 14 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PARTIES’ MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiff, 11 12 Case No. C 10-02066 SI KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC., v. SIDENSE CORPORATION, Defendant. / 15 On June 6, 2014, the parties filed their joint case management statement. Docket No. 414-3. 16 By the present motion, the parties move to file under seal portions of the joint case management 17 statement. Docket No. 414. 18 With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts 19 begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 20 Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in 21 connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling 22 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 23 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” 24 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations 25 and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive 26 motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 27 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly 28 tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local 1 Rule 79-5(b). Because the joint case management statement is not a dispositive motion, the “good 2 cause” standard applies. In the declaration attached to the motion to seal, counsel for defendant Sidense Corp. states that 4 the portions of the joint case management statement should be sealed because they were designated as 5 “Highly Confidential — Outside Counsel Eyes Only” by plaintiff. Docket No. 414-1 Tadlock Decl. ¶ 2. 6 However, good cause “cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 7 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but 8 rather must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file each 9 document under seal.” Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. C 09-4147 CW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15965, at 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 3 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a “particularized showing” 11 to establish good case). Neither party has provided the Court with such a declaration. Therefore, the 12 parties have failed to establish good cause for sealing the portions of the joint case management 13 statement. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ motion to seal. Docket No. 414. This denial is 15 without prejudice to the parties refiling their motion to seal, no later than June 12, 2014, in a format 16 which is narrowly tailored and demonstrates “good cause” for sealing the documents. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: June 9, 2014 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?