Procongps, Inc. v. Star Sensor Technology, LLC., et al.,

Filing 105

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/26/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PROCONGPS, INC., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 No. C 11-03975 SI Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL v. STAR SENSOR, LLC, et al., Defendants. / 13 14 15 On December 13, 2013, plaintiff Spireon (formerly “ProconGPS”) filed an administrative motion 16 to file documents under seal. Spireon seeks to seal defendant Star Sensor’s Responses to Spireon’s First 17 Interrogatories in support of Spireon’s “Concise Statement of the Nature and Status of the Dispute” with 18 Star Sensor. Star Sensor designated the Responses “highly confidential–attorneys’ eyes only.” 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), within 7 days the party designating the document as 20 confidential – defendant Star Sensor – must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that 21 the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing 22 order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. On December 19, 2012, Star Sensor 23 responded to the allegations in the “Concise Statement of the Nature and Status of the Dispute,” but 24 failed to address the issue of whether to seal its Responses. 25 “A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as 26 sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(a). With the 27 exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts begin their sealing 28 analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of 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 non- 2 dispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient 3 for the Court to file the documents under seal. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 4 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the moving party 5 must still make a “particularized showing” that “specific harm or prejudice will result if the information 6 is disclosed.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., Case No. 7 11–CV–01846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 4120541, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012). “Simply mentioning 8 a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the 9 documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Neither do “[b]road allegations 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. 11 Spireon’s administrative motion was filed on December 13, 2012, from which Star Sensor had 12 7 days to make a filing consistent with Local Rule 79-5(d). Star Sensor’s filing on December 19, 2012 13 failed to address the issue of whether to seal its Responses, and instead only addressed the allegations 14 in the “Concise Statement of the Nature and Status of the Dispute.” Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS 15 defendant Star Sensor to make the requisite showing that the documents at issue are sealable, no later 16 than January 4, 2013. If it does not do so, the documents will be appended to Spireon’s Concise 17 Statement of the Nature and Status of the Dispute with Star Sensor and made part of the public record. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: December 26, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?