Lou v. MA Laboratories, Inc et al

Filing 283

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 276 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 MICHELLE LOU, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 12-05409 WHA v. MA LABORATORIES, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL Defendants. / Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal information designated confidential by 18 defendants (Dkt. No. 276). Upon review of defendants’ declaration in support of the motion, the 19 motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows. 20 As a general matter, defendants have not established that the names of Ma Labs’ 21 employees and its general business procedures qualify as trade secrets. Defendants may, 22 however, redact Ma Labs’ own employees’ home addresses and salaries from the public record. 23 Defendants also may redact the identities of Ma Labs’ current customers. Thus, although the 24 motion to seal is DENIED as to the following exhibits, they may be re-filed under seal in redacted 25 form consistent with the foregoing: 2, 6, 7, 46-B, 26 27 28 The motion to seal is DENIED as to the following exhibits, which shall be filed on the public docket: 3, 5, 8, 9, 13-B, 16, 17, 21, 24–26, 44, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60–66. The motion to seal is GRANTED as to the following exhibits: 18, 19, 49, 50, 59. 1 2 The motion to seal is DENIED as to exhibit 45. The exhibit may be re-filed under seal with the negative employee evaluation redacted. 3 The parties are advised that in Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 4 2006), our court of appeals held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are 5 required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be 6 needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, public access to the work of 7 the courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed 8 on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a 9 “compelling reason” — a substantially higher standard than “good cause” — and the materials sealed by this order may possibly be laid open for public view on such a motion or at trial. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 16, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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?