Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 426

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO SEAL 418 419 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
MOTIONS TO SEAL

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 10-02066 SI

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

v.
SIDENSE CORP.,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17

On June 27, 2014, Sidense filed a renewed motion for attorney’s fees. Docket No. 417. Along

18

with its motion, Sidense filed a stipulation to file portions of the declaration of Xerxes Wania under seal.

19

Docket No. 418. On July 11, 2014, Kilopass filed its opposition to Sidense’s motion. Docket No. 420.

20

Along with its opposition, Kilopass filed a motion to seal exhibits 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27,

21

and 28 to the Declaration of Daralyn J. Durie. Docket No. 419.

22
23

I.

Legal Standard

24

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts

25

begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

26

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

27

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling

28

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”

1

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

2

and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive

3

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at

4

1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

5

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local

6

Rule 79-5(b). Because a motion for attorney’s fees is a non-dispositive motion, the “good cause”

7

standard applies. See, e.g., Muench Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. 12-cv-01927-WHO,

8

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178495, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013).

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

II.

Sidense’s Stipulation

11

The parties have stipulated to sealing portions of the Declaration of Xerxes Wania filed in

12

support of Sidense’s motion for attorney’s fees. To make the lower showing of good cause, the moving

13

party must make a “particularized showing” that “‘specific prejudice or harm’” will result if the

14

information is disclosed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186; accord Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd

15

v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm,

16

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” are insufficient to establish good cause.

17

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

Sidense argues that portions of the declaration should be filed under seal because these portions

19

contain confidential financial information related to Sidense’s annual revenues from 2009-2013. Docket

20

No. 418-1, Tadlock Decl. ¶ 2. Sidense argues that the public disclosure of this information could lead

21

to competitive harm. Id. After reviewing the attached declaration, the Court concludes that Sidense has

22

shown good cause to seal these portions of the declaration. In addition, Sidense’s request to seal is

23

narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact only the sealable information from the declaration.

24

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motion to seal portions of the Wania declaration.

25
26
27
28
2

1

III.

Kilopass’s Motion

2

Kilopass moves to seal exhibits 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 to the Declaration

3

of Daralyn J. Durie filed in support of Kilopass’s opposition. Docket No. 419. The Court has

4

previously found good cause or compelling reasons to seal all of these exhibits. Docket Nos. 247, 272,

5

361. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Kilopass’s motion to seal exhibits 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24,

6

25, 27, and 28 to the Durie declaration. This Order resolves Docket Nos. 418, 419.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: August 4, 2014
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3