Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER RE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 12-06441 SI SAGE ELECTROCHROMICS INC, ORDER RE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Plaintiff, v. VIEW INC, Defendant. / 16 17 Currently before the Court is defendant’s motion to file its Certification of Interested Parties 18 (required by Civil Local Rule 7-12) under seal to protect from disclosure non-public information 19 regarding some or all of its investors. Docket No. 12. In support of its motion, View, Inc. filed the 20 declaration of Brian Griedel which states that Mr. Griedel is “informed and believes” that disclosure to 21 plaintiff Sage and/or the public of information regarding View’s investors “could cause competitive 22 harm” to View, Inc. and/or its investors. Docket No. 12-1. 23 Mr. Griedel’s declaration fails to meet the “good cause” standard required to seal the information 24 at issue. Generally, when applying to file documents under seal in connection with a non-dispositive 25 motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient for the 26 Court to file the documents under seal. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 27 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the moving party must 28 still make a “particularized showing” that “specific harm or prejudice will result if the information is disclosed.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, 1 without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” 2 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Neither do “‘broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 3 examples or articulated reasoning.’” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 4 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). 5 Mr. Griedel’s declaration contains only broad, unsubstantiated allegations of potential harm. 6 Within five (5) days of the date of this Order, View must submit a further declaration providing specific 7 examples, supported by articulated reasoning, demonstrating why disclosure of some of all of its 8 confidential investors will result in harm sufficient to allow View to file its Certification under seal. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: January 14, 2013 13 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 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?