Huricks et al v. Shopkick, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL RE: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.With respect to Exhibit B to the Declaration of George Edwards, the motion is granted. With res pect to the other material, the Court defers ruling thereon in order to afford defendant the opportunity to file, no later than June 12, 2015, a supplemental declaration or other response. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 5, 2015. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C 14-2464 MMC

ZAK HURICKS, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL RE: OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,

12
v.
13

SHOPKICK, INC.,
14
Defendant.
15

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Unopposed Administrative Motion Pursuant to Civil

18

L.R. 79-5(d) to Seal Confidential Documents Related to Their Opposition to Shopkick’s

19

Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed May 25, 2015, by which plaintiffs seeks permission to

20

file under seal five documents submitted in connection with their opposition to defendant’s

21

motion for summary judgment, on the ground each such document includes or makes

22

reference to material defendant has designated as confidential. In response thereto,

23

defendant has filed two declarations in support of the administrative motion. Having read

24

and considered the parties’ respective written submissions, the Court rules as follows.

25

With respect to Exhibit B to the Declaration of George Edwards, the motion is hereby

26

GRANTED, as defendant has shown the entirety thereof consists of material properly filed

27

under seal.

28

With respect to each of the other four documents identified by plaintiffs, however,

1

specifically, (1) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Leeor Neta, (2) Exhibit B to the Declaration

2

of Leeor Neta, (3) plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and

3

(4) Paragraphs 19 through 51 of the Declaration of George Edwards, the motion is not

4

“narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

5

As to the first, second and third of the above-identified four documents, the motion to

6

seal is overbroad; although defendant has sufficiently shown each such document includes

7

material properly filed under seal, each such document also includes material that is not

8

sealable.1 As to the paragraphs in the fourth of the above-identified documents, the motion

9

to seal likewise is overboard; although defendant has sufficiently shown the paragraphs

10

plaintiffs seek to file under seal include material properly filed under seal, those paragraphs

11

also include material that is not sealable.2

12

In lieu of denial of the motion as it pertains to the above-referenced four documents,

13

the Court hereby DEFERS ruling thereon in order to afford defendant the opportunity to file,

14

no later than June 12, 2015, a supplemental declaration or other response in which

15

defendant identifies with greater particularity the sections of each of the above-referenced

16

four documents that are sealable.3

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated: June 5, 2015

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
1

21
22
23
24

For example, Exhibit A to the Neta Declaration includes testimony about the types
of rewards a user of defendant’s application can receive (see Neta Decl. Ex. A at 119:624), Exhibit B to the Neta Declaration includes testimony about what a user of the
application may see on the screen of a telephone (see id. Ex. B at 50), and plaintiffs’
opposition to the motion for summary judgment includes sections in which purely legal
argument is made, as well as argument discussing evidence in the record that is not
confidential (see, e.g., Pl.s’ Opp. at 17:13 - 22:23).
2

25
26

For example, the subject portion of the Edwards Declaration identifies statements
made on public websites by third parties about the characteristics of products sold by those
third parties. (See Edwards Decl. ¶ 39.)
3

27
28

Exhibit B to the Neta Declaration includes five pages that defendant “dedesignated” as confidential after plaintiffs’ motion to seal was filed. (See Buckley Decl.,
filed June 3, 2015, at 2:26-28.) No further statement need be made as to that material.
2