Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Management Group LLC et al

Filing 375

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying #347 #358 #360 Motions to Seal Without Prejudice.(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 12-cv-04000-EMC
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et
al.,

Docket Nos. 347, 358, 360

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
12
13

In connection to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the parties have filed several

14

administrative motions to file under seal. Docket Nos. 347, 358, 360. The administrative motions

15

to file under seal are largely related to Regus’s training materials and internal documents.

16

In general, when determining whether to grant a motion to file under seal, the Court “must

17

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep

18

certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th

19

Cir. 2006) (citation and internal modifications omitted). If the Court “decides to seal certain

20

judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for

21

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation omitted)

22

“Compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

23

court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such

24

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,

25

or release trade secrets.” Id.

26

The presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted when at issue is a non-

27

dispositive motion. Id. at 1179. The rationale is that “the public has less of a need for access to

28

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because these documents are often

1

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. Thus, “[t]he public

2

policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply

3

with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Id.
As to motions for class certification, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has not ruled as to whether a

4
5

motion for class certification is a dispositive motion for the purposes of determining whether the

6

compelling reasons standard applies.” English v. Apple Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO, 2015

7

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104017, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). While the courts in

8

this district generally treat motions for class certification as nondispositive, they have also

9

acknowledged that a motion for class certification can be dispositive where the “denial of class

(citation omitted). Thus, in English, the district court applied the compelling reasons standard

12
For the Northern District of California

status means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Id.

11

United States District Court

10

because the individual damages were “sufficiently limited that it is not plausible that she would

13

continue to litigate the case if certification is denied.” Id. at *5. Here, because the Court has in

14

fact denied class certification, and Judge Conti previously found that “the individual claims are

15

expected to be less than $3,000 each” in this case, the Court considers the motion dispositive and

16

will apply the compelling reasons standard. See Docket No. 335 at 32; Docket No. 374.

17

It is unclear what standard Regus applies in support of the motions to seal. However, at

18

this juncture, the Court does not believe that Regus has shown a compelling reason to seal all of

19

the documents at issue. The Ninth Circuit is clear that “the party must articulate compelling

20

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

21

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

22

process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotations and modifications omitted). For

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

that reason, the Court DENIES the motions to seal without prejudice. Regus may file a revised

2

declaration narrowing its sealing request and/or articulating specific reasons justifying those

3

requests within fourteen days of this order. If Regus does not do so, the parties will be required

4

to file the documents on the public docket.

5

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 347, 358, and 360.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Dated: March 14, 2016

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3