Gregory A.M. Brown v. Brian A. Brown

Filing 93

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 90 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. CV 13-03318 SI

GREGORY A.M BROWN,

v.
BRIAN A. BROWN, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

14

Defendants.

/

15
16

On January 24, 2014, defendant Brian A. Brown filed an amended answer and counterclaims.

17

Docket No. 90-4. By the present motion, defendant moves to seal portions of his amended answer and

18

counterclaims.

19

counterclaims should be sealed because they contain confidential, personal, and financial information

20

pertaining to defendant, plaintiff, and their companies. Id. at 1-3.

Docket No. 90.

Defendant argues that portions of the amended answer and

21

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts

22

begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

23

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

24

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling

25

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

26

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

27

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

28

and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive

1

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at

2

1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

3

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local

4

Rule 79-5(b).

5

“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling

6

reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but this Court and other courts have held that the

7

compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.” In re Google

8

Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138910, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (collecting

9

cases). Accordingly, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to defendant’s request to seal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

portions of his amended answer and counterclaims.

11

Defendant seeks to file under seal information about defendant’s and plaintiff’s salary, stock

12

options, bonuses, consulting fees, severance, and equity interests in privately held companies. Docket

13

No. 90 at 1. Defendant explains that the public disclosure of this information could harm plaintiff and

14

defendant because they are not retired and continue to seek employment and consulting opportunities.

15

Id. at 2. The Court concludes that defendant has shown compelling reasons for sealing this information.

16

See Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, at *13-15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012)

17

(granting motion to seal a party’s personal financial information, including information about the party’s

18

salary).

19

Defendant also seeks to file under seal information about the profits, losses, income,

20

investments, and expenses that derive from financial statements and ledgers of two privately held

21

companies co-funded by defendant and plaintiff. Docket No. 90 at 1. Defendant explains that the public

22

disclosure of this information could harm these companies if the information was used by its

23

competitors. Id. at 2. The Court concludes that defendant has shown compelling reasons for sealing

24

this information. See Hodges v. Apple Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164674, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18,

25

2013) (granting motion to seal a company’s private financial information).

26
27
28
2

1

In addition, defendant’s request is narrowly tailored because the amended answer and

2

counterclaims have been redacted to remove only the confidential information. Moreover, the Court

3

previously granted defendant’s motion to seal the same information when he filed his original answer

4

and counterclaims. Docket No. 77. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to seal.

5

Docket No. 90.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
Dated: January 29, 2014
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3