TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.
Filing
316
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 309 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TVIIM, LLC,
Case No. 13-cv-04545-HSG
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL
v.
9
10
MCAFEE, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 309
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Pending before the Court is Defendant McAfee, Inc.’s motion to seal portions of its reply
13
in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 309. No opposition to the motion
14
to seal was filed, and the time to do so has passed.
15
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
16
“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives
17
from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
18
records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)
19
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in
20
favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
21
1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th
22
Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record
23
related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual
24
findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,
25
such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.”
26
Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general,
27
‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing
28
court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’
1
such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
2
statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact
3
that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure
4
to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
5
The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to
6
keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal
7
certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
8
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule
9
79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file
a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .
12
The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-
13
5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of
14
15
access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive
16
motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”
17
parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”
19
standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
20
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
21
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad
22
allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not
23
suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
Because Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is a nondispositive motion, the
24
25
26
Court applies the “good cause” standard to the pending motion to seal.
II.
DISCUSSION
27
Defendant seeks to file under seal certain portions of its reply brief that reference
28
information already sealed by this Court. See Dkt. No. 300. The Court agrees that the proposed
2
1
redactions related to Defendant’s counsel’s fee arrangements contain sealable material. The Court
2
further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as
3
required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal the
4
proposed redactions on page 15 of Defendant’s reply brief. Within four days of the date of this
5
Order, Defendant shall file under seal the unredacted version of its reply in support of its motion
6
for attorney’s fees and costs.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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
3
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?