TRAACKR, INC. v. Leimgruber et al

Filing 7

Order by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins denying 2 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 TRAACKR, INC., a Corporation,
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 JESSE LEIMGRUBER, an individual; PJ
LEIMGRUBER aka P.J. LEIMGRUBER

15 aka PETER J. LEIMGRUBER; MISHA

Case No. 14-cv-02920 NC
ORDER DENYING TRAACKR’S
MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 2

TALAVERA, an individual; BRIAN

16 SOREL, an individual; NEOREACH, an
unincorporated association; RANK

17 EXECUTIVES INCORPORATED, a
Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through

18 25, inclusive,
19

Defendants.

20
21
22

Plaintiff TRAACKR, INC. moves the Court for an order authorizing the sealing of

23 portions of its complaint. Dkt. No. 2. The complaint alleges that defendants are associated
24 with a direct competitor of TRAACKR and have launched three different internet attacks on
25 TRAACKR, misappropriating confidential and proprietary data and trade secret
26 information. Dkt. No. 1. Having reviewed the materials submitted by TRAACKR in
27 connection with its motion, the Court finds that TRAACKR has not shown good cause for
28 the proposed sealing.
Case No. 14-cv-02920 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.

1

2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Requests to file under seal must be
3 “narrowly tailored,” and “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes
4 that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or
5 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
TRAACKR contends that the requested sealing is narrowly tailored and necessary to

6

7 protect “highly confidential technical information” contained in the complaint. Id. Upon
8 review of the complaint, however, the Court is not persuaded that the redacted portions
9 warrant protection from public access. The portions proposed to be sealed contain
10 information about defendants, including a press article which is by definition public. There
11 is no adequate justification provided for treating this information as plaintiff’s confidential
12 information. Additionally, TRAACKR has failed to articulate why the amount of damages
13 it claims as a result of defendants’ actions qualifies as a trade secret or other confidential
14 information. While the portions of the complaint sought to be sealed include some
15 information related to how TRAACKR determined that it was attacked as alleged in its
16 complaint, that information is at a very high level of generality and TRAACKR has failed
17 to articulate why the information should be treated as “highly competitive and confidential
18 information.” See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)
19 (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning”
20 do not establish good cause of the need for protection.). TRAACKR’s arguments for
21 sealing portions of the complaint are further undermined by the fact that some of the
22 information sought to be sealed appears elsewhere in unredacted portions of the complaint.
Because TRAACKR has not made a sufficient showing to overcome the presumption

23

24 of public access and justify sealing the complaint, its motion to seal is DENIED.
25 //
26
27
28
Case No. 14-cv-02920 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

2

1

By July 9, 20 TRAACKR must do one of th followin (1) file a notice info
y
014,
the
ng
orming

rt
hdraw its co
omplaint; (2 file an am
2)
mended com
mplaint; or (3) file
2 the Cour that it wishes to with
edacted com
mplaint in th public record.
he
3 the unre

4

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

5

Date: June 26 2014
6,

6

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

7
8
9
10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 14-cv-0292 NC
20
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
R
G
T

3