Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corporation

Filing 446

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO SEAL 443 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/25/2014)

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

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 10-02066 SI
Related Case No. C 11-04112 SI
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

v.
SIDENSE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

/

16
17

On September 22, 2014, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the

18

parties’ joint motions to seal twenty-three separate documents. Docket No. 442. In that order, the Court

19

denied the parties’ motion to seal Exhibit N to the Declaration of Roger L. Cook In Support of Sidense’s

20
21

Reply Fee Calculation Memorandum In Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Exhibit N”), because

22

the parties failed to provide the Court with an unredacted copy under seal, as required by Local Civil

23

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D). The parties have now done so; hence, the Court will consider the motion.

24
25

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” none of
which are present here, courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of

26
27
28

access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to
file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden

1
2

of “articulating compelling 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

3
the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.
4
5

2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A motion is considered dispositive even when it is

6

“connected to” a traditionally-dispositive order, like one for summary judgment. In re Midland Life Ins.

7

Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2012).

8

When a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of “good

9
cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient for the Court to file the documents
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

under seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the

12

moving party must still make a “particularized showing” that “specific harm or prejudice will result if

13

the information is disclosed.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,

14

Case No. 11–CV–01846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 4120541, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012). “Simply

15

mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with

16
17

the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Neither do “[b]road

18

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Phillips, 307 F.3d

19

at 1211. In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable

20

information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

21

Here, Exhibit N was filed in conjunction with the Sidense’s attorneys’ fee motion, which is non-

22
23
24

dispositive. Its adjudication will not affect the substantive claims or defenses of any parties to the
litigation, which has already concluded on the merits. See Docket No. 328 (order of judgment).

25

Sidense alleges that information contained in Exhibit N constitutes non-public, commercially

26

sensitive financial and customer information. Docket No. 443-1 O’Brien Decl. ¶ 2. Sidense further

27

alleges that publicly filing Exhibit N risks causing “serious financial harm” by providing this

28
information to competitors and customers. Id. After reviewing Exhibit N and the attached declaration,
2

1
2

the Court concludes that the parties have sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing Exhibit
N.

3
Accordingly, the parties’ motion to seal is GRANTED.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: September 25, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3