Ai-Daiwa, Ltd. v. Apparent, Inc. et al

Filing 193

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 153 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 158 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 166 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 176 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AI-DAIWA, LTD.,

Case No. 13-cv-04156-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

9
10

APPARENT, INC., et al.,

Docket Nos. 153, 158, 166, and 176

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties' motions to seal in connection with Apparent's partial motion for summary

13

judgment (Dkt. No. 153), AI-Daiwa's opposition (Dkt. 158), Apparent's reply (Dkt. No. 166), and

14

Apparent's opposition to AI-Daiwa's motion to strike (Dkt. No. 176) are denied. As an initial

15

matter, the parties' sealing requests are not narrowly tailored to cover only potentially sealable

16

information. To the contrary, for every exhibit the parties have attempted to seal, they have

17

proposed sealing the entire document. This is improper, and the motions to seal are denied for this

18

reason alone.

19

If the parties wish, they may resubmit their motions to seal within seven days; otherwise,

20

they must be filed publicly. The parties should note that the Court is of the tentative view that the

21

information should be filed publicly. It appears as if the parties' primary rationale for sealing is

22

that certain documents were designated as confidential in the parties' protective order. But

23

"[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

24

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable,"

25

N.D. Cal Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). Further, for documents in connection with a dispositive

26

motion – like those connected to Apparent's motion for summary judgment, AI-Daiwa's

27

opposition, and Apparent's reply – the parties must do more than show good cause for sealing;

28

rather, they must put forth compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings for why the

1

information should be sealed. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2

2006).

3

Accordingly, the motions to seal are denied.

4
5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2