Nicely v. International Game Technology

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 19 MOTION TO SEAL.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2014).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MARK NICELY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 14-03160 WHA
v.

14
15

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL

INTERNATIONAL GAME
TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation,
Defendant.
/

16
17

Defendant International Game Technology has moved to seal portions of the complaint

18

dated July 11, 2014, as well as portions of an exhibit appended thereto. For the following

19

reasons, the motion is DENIED.

20

In brief, this is a putative class action in which plaintiff Mark Nicely alleges (among

21

other items) that defendant breached its “Patent Award” contract and program for its employees.

22

According to the complaint, defendant paid its employees for invention disclosures that the

23

employees submitted and which the company included as part of its patent applications to the

24

United States Patent and Trademark Office. If the PTO later granted such a patent application,

25

defendant would pay additional compensation to the employee who had submitted the invention

26

disclosure. The complaint further alleges that defendant terminated its Patent Award program in

27

early 2014 (Compl. ¶ 3).

28

1

Now, defendant moves to seal portions of the complaint and an appended exhibit,

2

regarding confidential information that reportedly discloses “trade secrets details of the [Patent

3

Award] program” (Br. 1). Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79

4

(9th Cir. 2006), thus applies, requiring at least “a particularized showing . . . under the ‘good

5

cause’ standard of Rule 26(c)” to warrant sealing of materials attached to non-dispositive

6

motions. Id. at 1080 (internal citations omitted). Other courts in our district have further applied

7

Kamakana’s “compelling reasons” standard to motions to seal a complaint, “because a complaint

8

is the foundation of a lawsuit.” See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., 13-MD-02430-LHK,

9

2013 WL 5366963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (Judge Lucy H. Koh); and In re NVIDIA Corp.
Derivative Litig., 06–06110, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (Judge Saundra

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Brown Armstrong).

12

In any event, having reviewed the portions that defendant seeks to seal as well as the

13

parties’ briefing and declarations, this order finds no good cause here. As a preliminary matter,

14

the portions in dispute do not contain trade secrets; rather, those portions reveal general details

15

of how the Patent Award program worked. Furthermore, defendant declares that its competitors

16

“would” or “could” copy the program if sealing is denied, but does not explain how information

17

regarding the Patent Award program would give its competitors an advantage, especially as it is

18

undisputed that defendant itself has discontinued the program this year (see, e.g., Jhanb Decl. ¶

19

8). Furthermore, given that this is a putative class action, there is a public interest in having

20

potential class members and the public be aware of this action’s allegations, which presumably

21

will involve general details of how the Patent Award program worked.

22

The motion to seal is thus DENIED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: September 16, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2