Romack v. Bitcasa, Inc

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTION(DKT. NO. 15) by Hon. William Alsup re 15 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SHAWN ROMACK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12
13
14

No. C 14-05005 WHA

v.
BITCASA, INC,

ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTION
(DKT. NO. 15)

Defendant.
/

15
16

There is a “strong presumption” in favor of access to court records. Foltz v. State

17

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

18

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006), our court of appeals held that

19

more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in

20

dispositive motions. Otherwise, public access to the work of the courts would be unduly

21

compromised. Even for non-dispositive motions where the “good cause” standard applies, there

22

must be a “particularized showing” that specific harm or prejudice will result if the specific

23

information is disclosed. Local Rule 79-5(b) requires that sealing motions be “narrowly tailored

24

to seek sealing only of sealable material.”

25

This is a putative class action. On November 18 (the day before the preliminary

26

injunction hearing), defendant Bitcasa, Inc. filed an administrative motion for leave to file under

27

seal certain proposed redactions in (1) its opposition to a preliminary injunction and (2) a

28

declaration filed in support of its opposition. A declaration from Bitcasa’s Vice President was

1

filed in support of sealing “data and statistics Bitcasa collects,” Bitcasa’s financial data,” and

2

“how much we pay to rent servers from Amazon Web Services.”

3
4
5

Neither good cause nor compelling reasons support many of the proposed redactions. For
example, Bitcasa seeks to seal the following phrases:
•

“Incremental changes can solve Bitcasa’ financial
problems;”

•

“Insolvent, and with no new venture funding in sight;”

•

“But these changes scarcely made a dent;”

•

“These costs threaten Bitcasa’s very survival given the
company’s cash position and existing debt;”

•

“After November 30, its ability to keep the lights on will
depend on factors beyond its control;”

•

“Thus any extension of the TRO is likely to push Bitcasa
into bankruptcy within weeks, if not days;”

13

•

“efforts, at great risk to its ability to survive as a company;”

14

•

“dire financial circumstances, the immense costs of offering
a longer notice period;”

•

“In fact, the only legally recognized irreparable harm that
can possibly result here is the bankruptcy of Bitcasa. Doran
v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932 (1975) (being forced
into bankruptcy is an irreparable harm that can justify
injunctive relief);”

•

“the future of a company and the livelihood of its 60
employees;”

•

“desperate need to overhaul its business to avert bankruptcy
and put the company on a path toward becoming a viable
enterprise;”

•

“A company’s future, the jobs of sixty people, several years
of work, and tens of millions of dollars in investment risk
extinction if the Court extends the Plaintiff’s baseless
request for a TRO to protect his meritless claims,” and so
on.

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The vast majority of Bitcasa’s sealing motion is overstated and not narrowly tailored to

26

only sealable material supported by specific declarations. Moreover, even its revenues, costs of

27

renting server space, and debts are not sealable on this motion. Bitcasa seeks relief from a

28
2

1

temporary restraining order in a putative class action. Putative class members, the public, and the

2

press have a right to see what Bitcasa has submitted in its opposition brief in this record.

3
4

Accordingly, Bitcasa’s sealing motion is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The entire opposition
and supporting declaration shall be publicly filed within TWO CALENDAR DAYS.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: November 19, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3