Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.

Filing 195

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 171 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 180 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 186 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC.,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
MICROSTRATEGY INC.,

13

Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-cv-06637-RS-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 171, 180, 186)

Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSI”) and Microstrategy, Inc. (“Microstrategy”) move to seal

15
16

documents and exhibits offered in support of or in response to Microstrategy’s recent motion to

17

compel. 1 Having reviewed the requests and the supporting declarations, the court DENIES the

18

requests.

19
20

Sealing motions for documents submitted with nondispositive discovery motions are
subject to the good cause standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 2 Even under the lower good cause

21
22
23
24

standard, the parties must make a “particularized showing” 3 that “specific prejudice or harm will
result,” 4 and they must “narrowly tailor” their requests to information for which they have made

26

See Docket No. 170.

2

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Id.

4

25

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

27
28

1
Case No.: 11-6637 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

that showing. 5 “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

2

reasoning” will not suffice. 6 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may

3

reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 7 but

4

a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not

5

provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain

6

sealed. 8

7
All of the documents to be sealed are purportedly VSI’s confidential information. In

8
9

support of Microstrategy’s requests on its behalf and its own request, VSI offers declarations that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

state that the documents to be sealed “reflect VSi’s protected trade secrets and information that is

11

not publicly-available or widely known and which, if made public, could cause competitive harm

12

to” VSI. 9 This statement alone does not suffice to demonstrate the specific and particularized harm

13
14

that would result if the information contained within the redacted and sealed exhibits were
disclosed.

15
The court nevertheless has reviewed the documents to ensure that they do not contain any

16
17

obviously proprietary or personal information and finds much of their contents to be inappropriate

18

for sealing. For example, one exhibit includes publicly available patent information 10 and another

19

includes a published article about the National Security Agency. 11 For other exhibits, VSI has not

20
21

5

Civil L.R. 79-5

22

6

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.

23

7

See id. at 1179-80.

24

8

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

9

See Docket Nos. 178, 180 Ex. 1.

25
26

10

See Docket No. 170 Ex. 5.

11

See id. Ex. 6.

27
28

2
Case No.: 11-6637 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

provided sufficient explanation for why the information would be harmful if disclosed.

2

Information such as Frank Schwartz’s employment with VSI and the disputes following the end of

3

his employment, 12 VSI’s intention to pursue litigation against the National Security Agency, 13 or

4

VSI’s preservation actions or email backup capabilities 14 do not appear to warrant sealing. VSI

5

likewise has failed to explain the injury that would result from disclosure of an exchange of emails

6

between Frank Schwarz and Mark and Helen Vasudevan. 15

7
Because VSI has not provided a particularized showing of the harm that would result from

8
9

public filing of these documents, the requests to seal the exhibits and redact the briefs are

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

DENIED. The parties shall file unredacted copies of the documents within fourteen days.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated: April 4, 2013
13
14

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

26

See Docket No. 170 Ex. 9; Docket No.179 Exs. 2, 3.

13

See id. Exs. 3, 4.

14

See id. Exs. 2, 12; Docket No. 179 Exs. 3, 11.

15

25

12

See Docket No. 179 Exs. 4, 5, 6, 7.

27
28

3
Case No.: 11-6637 RS (PSG)
ORDER