Sage Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc.

Filing 15

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

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