Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rearden LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 34 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. As to Exhibits F-K and Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the Court will not consider these documents unless an unredacte d version is filed within seven (7) days. As to Exhibits A-C, the Defendants may file within seven (7) days either an unredacted version or a revised motion to file these documents under seal that properly tailors the redactions to sealable material and adequately explains the compelling reasons for sealing the material. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SHENZHENSHI HAITIECHENG SCIENCE )
AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
REARDEN, LLC; REARDEN MOVA, LLC; )
MO2, LLC; MOVA, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. CV 15-cv-00797-SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

15
16
17

Defendants have filed a motion to seal documents (or portions

18

of documents) submitted in support of their motion for summary

19

judgment.

20

adequately limited to sealable material and does not follow the

21

Civil Local Rules.

22

Defendants seek to seal is indeed sealable.

23

Defendants' motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

24

ECF No. 34 ("Mot. to Seal").

Defendants' motion is not

Nonetheless, a small amount of the information
As a result,

This case is about who owns the "MOVA Assets" -- a set of

25

hardware, software, intellectual property, and other assets

used

26

in motion pictures and video games.

27

that it bought the MOVA Assets from an entity controlled by Greg

28

LaSalle, a former employee of Defendant Rearden LLC ("Rearden").

Plaintiff Shenzhenshi claims

summary judgment on Defendants' counterclaim for declaratory

3

relief.

4

judgment argues, in part, that "undisputed facts show that LaSalle,

5

under the express terms of his contract with Rearden, could never

6

have owned the MOVA Assets; thus LaSalle could not have transferred

7

them to Shenzheshi."

8

United States District Court

The parties are in the process of briefing Defendants' motion for

2

For the Northern District of California

1

seal documents submitted in support of their motion for summary

9

judgment.

10

ECF No. 35 ("MSJ").

Defendants' motion for summary

Id. at 1.

Defendants have filed a motion to

"Courts have recognized 'a general right to inspect and copy

11

public records and documents, including judicial records and

12

documents.'"

13

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435

14

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).

15

judicial records must therefore articulate justifications for

16

sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.

17

Further, motions for sealing must be narrowly tailored to include

18

only sealable material.

19

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

A party seeking the sealing of

Id. at 1178-79.

Here, the standard for sealing records filed in connection

20

with Defendants' motion for summary judgment is particularly high

21

because "resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or

22

summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the

23

'public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant

24

public events.'"

25

Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289,

26

1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

27

with specific facts that compelling reasons support the

28

preservation of secrecy.

Id. at 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley

Accordingly, Defendants must demonstrate

Id.

Conclusory statements concerning

2

documents fail to carry this burden.

3

Civil Local Rules specify that administrative motions to file

4

documents under seal must be accompanied by (A) a declaration

5

establishing that the document or portions thereof is sealable; (B)

6

a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the

7

sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or

8

United States District Court

hypothetical harm that may result from public disclosure of such

2

For the Northern District of California

1

portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.

9

Defendants' motion is not narrowly tailored and the supporting

Id. at 1182-84.

Further, the

Civil L.R. 79-5.

10

declaration is insufficient to establish that the information is

11

sealable.

12

As to Exhibit A (Employment Agreement and Proprietary

13

Information and Inventions Agreement between Rearden LLC and

14

LaSalle), Defendants seek to redact Mr. LaSalle's salary

15

information and information relating to their human resource

16

management services and arbitration agreement.

17

declaration, Defendants argue that redaction of this information is

18

necessary "both to respect the employees' privacy and because

19

public knowledge of the agreements' terms, including but not

20

limited to compensation information, could enable competitors to

21

compete against Rearden more effectively."

22

G. Perlman ("Perlman Decl.") at 1.

23

of Mr. LaSalle's confidential salary information.

24

all other redactions in Exhibit A, Defendants' reasons are neither

25

specific nor compelling.

26

is DENIED.

27
28

In their supporting

Declaration of Stephen

The Court will allow redactions
With respect to

Defendants motion as to these redactions

As to Exhibits B and C, Defendants ask the Court to seal
emails "relating to . . . business plans . . . subject to

3

successors might consider public disclosure of these exhibits a

3

breach of those obligations."

4

is vague, conclusory, and hypothetical.

5

the Court cannot find that the Defendants' reasons are sufficiently

6

compelling to outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.

7

addition, Defendants' request is not narrowly tailored as it seeks

8

United States District Court

contractual confidentiality obligations to OL2, and OL2 and/or its

2

For the Northern District of California

1

to seal the communications in their entirety without explaining why

9

more limited redactions would be insufficient.

10

Id. at 1.

Defendants' justification
Without more information,

In

Defendants' motion

as to these exhibits is DENIED.
As to Exhibits F-K, Defendants ask the Court to seal emails

11
12

among Mr. LaSalle and other Rearden employees relating to Mr.

13

LaSalle's departure from the company.

14

Defendants state that

These emails contain personal notes and sensitive details
about the terms of LaSalle's employment and separation.
Rearden does not make a practice of publicly disclosing
internal discussions regarding personnel matters both to
respect the employees' privacy and because public
knowledge of the substance of the discussions . . . could
enable competitors to compete against Rearden more
effectively.

15
16
17
18
Id.

Defendants' boilerplate justification regarding the

19
competitive effect of revealing these communications is unavailing.
20
Further, the "personal" and "sensitive" nature of the emails are
21
not compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public policies
22
favoring disclosure.

See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 331

23
F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the potential for
24
embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to litigation through the
25
public disclosure of information is not, without more, sufficient
26
for court protection).

Defendants' motion as to these exhibits and

27
28

4

1

the corresponding redacted sections in their motion for summary

2

judgment is DENIED.
Defendants' motions to file under seal are GRANTED or DENIED

3
4

as described in the table below:

5
6
7

ECF No. (Description)
34-4 (unredacted MSJ)
34-6 (unredacted Ex. A)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

34-7 (Ex. B)
34-8 (Ex. C)
34-9 (Ex. F)
34-10 (Ex. G)
34-11 (Ex. H)
34-12 (Ex. I)
34-13 (Ex. J)
34-14 (Ex. K)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Ruling on Motion to File Under Seal
DENIED
GRANTED IN PART as to Mr. LaSalle's
salary information
DENIED as to all other redactions
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED
DENIED

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to seal is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

As to Exhibits F-K and

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court will not
consider these documents unless an unredacted version is filed
within seven (7) days.

See Civil L.R. 79-5(f).

As to Exhibits A-

C, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants may within seven (7)
days file either (1) an unredacted version, or (2) a revised motion
to file these documents under seal that properly tailors the
///
///
///
///
///

28

5

1

redactions to sealable material and adequately explains the

2

compelling reasons for sealing the material.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: June 23, 2015

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6