Brickman v. Fitbit, Inc.
Filing
182
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/4/2017. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JAMES P BRICKMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
Re: Dkt. No. 159, 165, 167, 174.
FITBIT, INC.,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
v.
9
10
Case No. 3:15-cv-02077-JD
12
13
This order resolves pending administrative motions to file documents under seal. Of the
14
pending motions, the ones at Dkt. Nos. 119, 121, 128, 129, 131, 133, 139, 145, and 152 are moot
15
in light of the Court’s prior order at Dkt. No. 146 and the parties’ joint omnibus motion at Dkt.
16
No. 159. In this order, the Court rules on the motions at Dkt. Nos. 159, 165, 167, and 174.
17
I.
18
GOVERNING STANDARDS
In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on
19
whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive
20
motion.
21
For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”
22
fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that
23
presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir.
24
2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).
25
This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more,
26
satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district
27
court must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar
28
Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
1
The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the
2
public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records
3
attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of
4
access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-
5
dispositive materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that
6
context, materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized
7
showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180
8
(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair
9
advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to
obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-
12
003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties
13
14
requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s
15
requirement that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are
16
privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” i.e., is
17
“sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek
18
sealing only of sealable material.” Id.
19
II.
DISCUSSION
20
A.
21
The documents sought to be sealed in Dkt. No. 159 were filed in connection with a motion
Documents Sought to be Sealed in Dkt. No. 159
22
for class certification, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard. Ochoa v. McDonald’s
23
Corp., No. 14-cv-02098-JD, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2015). Applying this
24
standard, the Court rules on the requests to seal as follows. In each case where a request is denied,
25
personally identifiable information of individuals may be redacted.
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Portion of
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Document Sealed
Documents relating to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
119-3
Brief in Support of These portions of the brief
Motion for Class
identify and describe other
Certification:
exhibits that Fitbit has
pages and lines
requested to file under seal.
3:15-18, 22-28;
Dkt. No. 159-1 (“Lee Decl. I”)
5:6-7; 11-13, 16¶ 16.
28; 6:1-2, 8-12,
18-24; 7:3-13, 1728; 8:1-23; FN3;
22:4-5.
119-5
Declaration of
These portions of the
Patrick J. Perotti:
declaration identify and
pages and lines
describe other exhibits that
2:12-15, 22-27;
Fitbit has requested to file
3:1-9, 13-27; 4:1under seal. Lee Decl. I ¶ 15.
2, 10-13.
119-8
Exhibit 2 to Perotti This internal document details
Declaration: entire the results of confidential and
document.
proprietary market research,
Fitbit’s development and
understanding of the Fitbit
consumer demographic,
analysis of industry
competitors, and a comparison
of device functionality as it
relates to consumer interests.
Its disclosure could cause Fitbit
competitive harm, have a
chilling effect on internal
business discussions, and
prevent Fitbit from discussing
and responding to the needs of
its customers. Lee Decl. I ¶¶
12-13.
119-9
Exhibit 3 to Perotti The excerpted deposition
Declaration: entire testimony discusses proprietary
document.
business, engineering, and
technical information relating
to the development and
implementation of Fitbit’s
sleep-tracking technology.
Publication of the information
could disadvantage Fitbit’s
ability to compete and would
give competitors access to free
Dkt. No.
3
Granted/Denied
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these portions of the brief.
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these portions of the
declaration.
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these “Talking Points” and
“FAQs.” Additionally, this
request is not “narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
79-5(b).
Granted in part. Pages 118121 may be sealed because
Fitbit has shown a concrete
likelihood of competitive harm
that could be caused by their
disclosure. The request to seal
the remainder of the deposition
testimony is denied because
Fitbit has not shown any
concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
1
Dkt. No.
Portion of
Document Sealed
2
3
119-10
Exhibit 4 to Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
119-11
Exhibit 5 to Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
119-12
Exhibit 6 to Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
research and development. Lee
Decl. I ¶¶ 4-6.
The excerpted deposition
testimony discusses proprietary
business, engineering, and
technical information relating
to the development and
implementation of Fitbit’s
sleep-tracking technology.
Publication of the information
could disadvantage Fitbit’s
ability to compete and would
give competitors access to free
research and development. Lee
Decl. I ¶¶ 4-6.
These internal documents detail
the results of confidential and
proprietary market research,
Fitbit’s development and
understanding of the Fitbit
consumer demographic,
analysis of industry
competitors, and a comparison
of device functionality as it
relates to consumer interests.
Their disclosure could cause
Fitbit competitive harm, have a
chilling effect on internal
business discussions, and
prevent Fitbit from discussing
and responding to the needs of
its customers. Lee Decl. I ¶¶
12-13.
This graphic details the results
of confidential and proprietary
market research, Fitbit’s
development and understanding
of the Fitbit consumer
demographic, analysis of
industry competitors, and a
comparison of device
functionality as it relates to
consumer interests. Its
disclosure could cause Fitbit
competitive harm. Lee Decl. I
¶¶ 12-13.
could be caused by its
disclosure.
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of the excerpted deposition
testimony. Additionally, this
request is not “narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
79-5(b).
4
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these internal documents.
Additionally, this request is not
“narrowly tailored to seek
sealing only of sealable
material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of this graphic.
1
Dkt. No.
2
119-13
3
Portion of
Document Sealed
Exhibit 7 to Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
4
5
6
7
8
9
119-15
Exhibit 9 to Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
119-16
Exhibit 10 to
Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
119-17
Exhibit 11 to
Perotti
Declaration: entire
document.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
These marketing materials
detail the results of confidential
and proprietary market
research, Fitbit’s development
and understanding of the Fitbit
consumer demographic,
analysis of industry
competitors, and a comparison
of device functionality as it
relates to consumer interests.
Their disclosure could cause
Fitbit competitive harm. Lee
Decl. I ¶¶ 12-13.
These internal emails between
Fitbit employees reflect
sensitive internal business
discussions, confidential
engineering strategy, and
proprietary details about Fitbit
technology. Disclosure of the
emails could chill internal
business discussions, and allow
competitors to develop
marketing strategies
specifically aimed at
undercutting Fitbit’s market
share. Lee Decl. I ¶¶ 9-11.
These emails between Fitbit
employees and third parties
reflect sensitive business
discussions, confidential
engineering strategy, and
proprietary details about Fitbit
technology. Disclosure of the
emails could chill internal
business discussions, and allow
competitors to develop
marketing strategies
specifically aimed at
undercutting Fitbit’s market
share. Lee Decl. I ¶¶ 9-11.
These emails between Fitbit
employees and third parties
reflect sensitive business
discussions, confidential
engineering strategy, and
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these marketing materials.
Additionally, this request is not
“narrowly tailored to seek
sealing only of sealable
material.” See Civil L.R. 795(b).
5
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these emails. Additionally,
this request is not “narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
79-5(b).
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these emails. Additionally,
this request is not “narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
79-5(b).
Denied. Fitbit has not shown a
concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these emails. Additionally,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dkt. No.
Portion of
Document Sealed
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
proprietary details about Fitbit
this request is not “narrowly
technology. Disclosure of the
tailored to seek sealing only of
emails could chill internal
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
business discussions, and allow 79-5(b).
competitors to develop
marketing strategies
specifically aimed at
undercutting Fitbit’s market
share. Lee Decl. I ¶¶ 9-11.
119-18
Exhibit 12 to
These emails detail the results
Denied. Fitbit has not shown a
Perotti
of confidential and proprietary
concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire market research, Fitbit’s
competitive or other harm that
document.
development and understanding could be caused by disclosure
of the Fitbit consumer
of these emails. Additionally,
demographic, analysis of
this request is not “narrowly
industry competitors, and a
tailored to seek sealing only of
comparison of device
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
functionality as it relates to
79-5(b).
consumer interests. Their
disclosure could cause Fitbit
competitive harm, have a
chilling effect on internal
business discussions, and
prevent Fitbit from discussing
and responding to the needs of
its customers. Lee Decl. I ¶¶
12-13.
119-21
Exhibit 15 to
These internal emails reflect
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
sensitive business discussions,
any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire confidential engineering
competitive or other harm that
document.
strategy, and proprietary details could be caused by disclosure
about Fitbit technology. Their
of this email. Additionally,
disclosure could chill internal
this request is not “narrowly
business discussions, and allow tailored to seek sealing only of
competitors to develop
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
marketing strategies
79-5(b).
specifically aimed at
undercutting Fitbit’s market
share. Lee Decl. I ¶¶ 9-11.
Documents relating to Fitbit’s Opposition to the Class Certification Motion
122
Brief in
These portions of the brief
Granted. Each requested
Opposition to
contain information drawn from portion is sealable either for
Class
sealable portions of exhibits
privacy reasons or because
Certification:
and documents filed in
Fitbit has established a
pages and lines
connection with the brief, and
concrete likelihood of
1:23; 2:1; 3:8-12;
should be sealed for the same
competitive or other harm from
6
1
Dkt. No.
2
3
4
5
122-1
6
7
8
9
10
122-2
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
122-3
14
15
16
122-4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
122-8
24
25
Portion of
Document Sealed
6:13-19; FN7; 7:18, 12-15; 18-23;
FN8; 8:1-15, 2023; FN9; 9:3;
13:7-10; 21:4;
FN22.
Declaration of
Conor Heneghan:
pages and lines
1:26; 2:2, 4, 6, 8-9,
11, 13, 15-24, 2728; 3:1-3, 5-7, 13,
16, 18, 20, 22-27;
4:1-2, 4, 6, 8-13,
16-17, 20-22, 25.
Exhibit Y to the
Heneghan
Declaration: entire
document.
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
reasons as those exhibits and
documents. Lee Decl. I ¶ 30.
its disclosure.
These portions of the
declaration contain, discuss, or
reflect plaintiffs’ personal sleep
tracking data recorded using
their Fitbit devices. Lee Decl. I
¶ 30.
Granted for privacy reasons.
This spreadsheet contains
plaintiffs’ personal sleep
tracking data recorded using
their Fitbit devices. Lee Decl. I
¶ 30.
Exhibit Z to the
This spreadsheet contains
Heneghan
plaintiffs’ personal sleep
Declaration: entire tracking data recorded using
document.
their Fitbit devices. Lee Decl. I
¶ 30.
Declaration of
These portions of the Yuen
Sheltuen Yuen:
Declaration reflect business
pages and lines
strategy, internal policies,
2:11-13, 24-28;
procedures, and processes
3:1-18.
related to product and
technology research, design,
development, and market
analysis, which could be used
by Fitbit’s competitors to
Fitbit’s disadvantage. Lee
Decl. I ¶ 20.
Exhibit 1 to the
These portions of the Grandner
Declaration of
Report reference specific tests,
William Stern: ¶
internal validations, and
39; ¶¶ 41-47; ¶¶
analyses performed relating to
49-52; ¶ 60.
Fitbit’s devices and competing
devices. Lee Decl. I ¶ 19.
Granted for privacy reasons.
26
27
28
122-10
Exhibit 3 to the
Declaration of
William Stern:
Granted for privacy reasons.
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
any concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by disclosure
of these portions of the
declaration.
Granted. Fitbit and Dr.
Grandner have shown a
concrete likelihood of
competitive or other harm that
could be caused by the
disclosure of these portions of
the report.
Some portions of the Ugone
Granted. Each requested
Report contain statistics and
portion is sealable either for
sensitive information relating to privacy reasons or because
7
Portion of
Document Sealed
FN32; ¶¶ 37-39;
FN97; FN98; ¶ 56;
¶ 58(b); FN 136; ¶
64; FN153;
FN154; Exh. 5.
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Exhibit 1 to the
Perotti
The excerpted deposition
testimony reflects Fitbit’s
1
Dkt. No.
2
26
consumer purchase habits and
Fitbit has established a
preferences, and reflect Fitbit’s concrete likelihood of
internal policies, procedures,
competitive or other harm from
and processes related to market its disclosure.
research and analysis. Lee
Decl. I ¶ 18. Others contain,
discuss, or reflect plaintiffs’
personal sleep tracking data
recorded using their Fitbit
devices. Id. ¶ 30.
Documents relating to Plaintiffs’ Reply re: Motion for Class Certification
131-3
Reply in support
The brief contains confidential Denied. Fitbit has not shown
of Class
information regarding Fitbit’s
any concrete likelihood of
Certification:
research and development
competitive or other harm that
pages and lines
relating to its sleep-tracking
could be caused by disclosure
1:8-9, 20; 2:7-8;
technology. Lee Decl. I ¶ 36.
of these portions of the brief.
3:7; 5:2-4.
131-8
Exhibit 2 to the
The excerpted deposition
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
testimony contains confidential any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire information regarding Fitbit’s
competitive or other harm that
document.
research and development
could be caused by disclosure
relating to its sleep-tracking
of the excerpted deposition
technology. Lee Decl. I ¶ 36.
testimony.
Documents relating to Fitbit’s Motion to Strike the Burke/Rosen Report
123-2
Exhibit 1 to the
The Burke and Rosen report
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
Stern Declaration: contains confidential
Burke and Rosen report,
portions of pages 1 information regarding Fitbit’s
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
and 2.
internal policies, procedures,
146.
and processes related to product
and technology research,
design, and development, and
market analysis. Lee Decl. I ¶
38.
Documents relating to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Strike the Burke/Rosen Report
129-4
Opposition to
These portions of the brief
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
Defendant’s
include confidential
Burke and Rosen report,
Motion to Strike
information regarding Fitbit’s
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
the Burke and
research and development
146.
Rosen Report:
relating to its sleep-tracking
pages and lines
technology. Lee Decl. I ¶ 41.
1:8, 24-28; 2:1-4;
3:15-17, 23; 8:310.
27
129-7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
8
Granted/Denied
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
Burke and Rosen report,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Portion of
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
Document Sealed
Declaration: entire business strategy, internal
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
document.
policies, procedures, and
146.
processes related to product and
technology research, design,
development, and market
analysis, which could be used
by Fitbit’s competitors to
Fitbit’s disadvantage. Lee
Decl. I ¶ 41.
129-9
Exhibit 3 to the
This portion of the rebuttal
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
Perotti
declaration reflects Fitbit’s
Burke and Rosen report,
Declaration:
confidential product
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
¶ 11.
development information,
146.
technology, and contemplated
product functionality that is not
publicly known, and which
could be used by Fitbit’s
competitors to Fitbit’s
disadvantage. Lee Decl. I ¶ 42.
Documents relating to Fitbit’s Reply re: Motion to Strike the Burke/Rosen Report
140
Reply in support
These portions of the brief
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
of Motion to Strike reflect confidential Fitbit
Burke and Rosen report,
the Burke and
product development
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
Rosen Report:
information, technology, and
146.
pages and lines
contemplated product
2:20; 4:11-18;
functionality, as well as
7:23-24; FN8-11;
information regarding product
8:1-2.
development costs and pricing.
Lee Decl. I ¶ 43.
Dkt. No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Documents relating to Notice of Filing of Deposition Testimony of Harvey Rosen
145-4
Exhibit 2 to the
These portions of Dr. Rosen’s
N/A. Plaintiffs withdrew the
Bartela
testimony discuss pricing
Burke and Rosen report,
Declaration: pages sheets, Fitbit’s cost of goods,
mooting this request. Dkt. No.
and lines 61:17-25; internal research goals and
146.
62:1-4; 63:3-7, 23- development, and the
25; 64:6-25; 65:1- technology underlying the
18; 66:2-8, 16-18; different features available in
70: 10-25; 71:1different Fitbit products. Lee
25; 72:1-25; 73:1- Decl. I ¶ 44.
25; 74:1-25; 75:125; 76:1-25; 77:18.
28
9
1
2
B.
Documents Sought to be Sealed in Dkt. Nos. 165, 167, and 174
The documents sought to be sealed in Dkt. Nos. 165, 167, and 174 were filed in connection
3
with a motion for summary judgment, so the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Kamakana,
4
447 F.3d at 1178-80. Applying this standard, the Court rules on the requests to seal as follows. In
5
each case where a request is denied, personally identifiable information of individuals may be
6
redacted.
7
Dkt. No.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Portion of
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
Document Sealed
Documents relating to Plaintiffs’ Brief Opposing Summary Judgment
165-2
Plaintiffs’
These portions of the brief
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Opposition to
identify and describe other
any concrete likelihood of
Fitbit’s Motion for exhibits that Fitbit has
competitive or other harm that
Summary
requested to file under seal.
could be caused by disclosure
Judgment: pages
Dkt. No. 168 (“Lee Decl. II”) ¶ of these portions of the brief.
and lines 1:10, 25; 15.
2:1-7, 11; 4:13-18,
26-27; 6:22-27;
7:1, 3-6, 8-20, 2527; 8:1-2; 9:11;
13:23; 14:1-6.
165-7
Exhibit 1 to the
These internal emails discuss
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
proprietary business,
any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire engineering, and technical
competitive or other harm that
document.
information relating to the
could be caused by disclosure
development of Fitbit’s sleepof these emails. Additionally,
tracking technology. They
this request is not “narrowly
concern highly confidential
tailored to seek sealing only of
issues relating to sleep tracking, sealable material.” Civil L.R.
including how Fitbit developed 79-5(b).
the proprietary algorithm used
in its devices. Lee Decl. II ¶ 5.
165-11
Exhibit 5 to the
The excerpted deposition
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
testimony discusses proprietary any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire business, engineering, and
competitive or other harm that
document.
technical information relating
could be caused by disclosure
to the development and
of the testimony. Additionally,
implementation of Fitbit’s
this request is not “narrowly
sleep-tracking technology, an
tailored to seek sealing only of
important, proprietary Fitbit
sealable material.” Civil L.R.
technology. The testimony
79-5(b).
concerns highly confidential
issues relating to sleep tracking,
including Fitbit’s scientific
research regarding the sleep10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dkt. No.
Portion of
Document Sealed
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
Granted/Denied
tracking algorithm, Fitbit’s
scientific research supporting
its sleep-tracking technology,
the procedures for validating
the sleep-tracking function, and
the pricing of products. Lee
Decl. II ¶ 9.
165-12
Exhibit 6 to the
These emails discuss
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
proprietary business,
any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire engineering, and technical
competitive or other harm that
document.
information relating to the
could be caused by disclosure
development of Fitbit’s sleepof these emails. Additionally,
tracking technology. They
this request is not “narrowly
concern highly confidential
tailored to seek sealing only of
issues relating to sleep tracking, sealable material.” Civil L.R.
including how Fitbit developed 79-5(b).
the proprietary algorithm used
in its devices. Lee Decl. II ¶ 5.
165-13
Exhibit 7 to the
These emails discuss
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Perotti
proprietary business,
any concrete likelihood of
Declaration: entire engineering, and technical
competitive or other harm that
document.
information relating to the
could be caused by disclosure
development of Fitbit’s sleepof these emails.
tracking technology. They
concern highly confidential
issues relating to sleep tracking,
including how Fitbit developed
the proprietary algorithm used
in its devices. Lee Decl. II ¶ 5.
Documents relating to Plaintiffs’ Brief Opposing Motion to Strike the Montgomery-Downs Report
167-1
Plaintiffs’
These portions of the brief
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Opposition to
identify and describe other
any concrete likelihood of
Fitbit’s Motion to
exhibits that Fitbit has
competitive or other harm that
Strike: pages and
requested to file under seal.
could be caused by disclosure
lines 11:28; 12:4.
Lee Decl. II ¶ 16.
of these portions of the brief.
Documents relating to Fitbit’s Reply re: Motion for Summary Judgment
176
Fitbit’s Reply
These portions of Fitbit’s brief
Denied. Fitbit has not shown
Memorandum in
reflect confidential information any concrete likelihood of
Support of Motion regarding Fitbit’s (1)
competitive or other harm that
for Summary
proprietary business,
could be caused by disclosure
Judgment: pages
engineering, development, and of these portions of the brief,
and lines 3:1-2,
technical information; (2)
and plaintiffs’ privacy interests
19-20; FN3; 7:12; proprietary market research,
will not be harmed by their
11:14.
manufacturing and
disclosure.
development costs; and (3)
confidential user data. Dkt. No.
11
1
2
Dkt. No.
Portion of
Document Sealed
176-2
Exhibit L to the
Declaration of
William L. Stern:
entire document.
176-3
Exhibit M to the
Stern Reply
Declaration: pages
and lines 26:20-25;
27:1-22; 28:1-4.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
Fitbit’s Reason for Sealing
174-1 (“Lee Decl. III”) ¶¶ 3-9.
Dr. Grandner’s deposition
transcript includes testimony
regarding Fitbit’s proprietary
sleep tracking technology,
including hardware, software,
algorithms, and other
technology. It also contains
testimony describing specific
tests, internal validations, and
analyses performed by Fitbit
relating to Fitbit’s products.
Lee Decl. III ¶¶ 10-13.
These portions of Dr. Winter’s
deposition transcript discuss his
confidential consulting work
for third parties. This
information is not public and
relates to projects concerning
confidential product
development. Lee Decl. III ¶
14.
Granted/Denied
Denied without prejudice.
The Court finds that some
material in the deposition
transcript may be sealable, but
that the request to seal the
entire document is not
“narrowly tailored to seek
sealing only of sealable
material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Fitbit may file a supplemental
motion to seal portions of the
transcript within 7 days of this
order.
Granted. Fitbit has
demonstrated compelling
reasons for sealing these
portions of the transcript based
on the confidential nature of
the information and the
competitive harm to third
parties threatened by its
disclosure.
16
17
18
III.
CONCLUSION
To the extent that an administrative motion to file under seal discussed in this order was
19
denied with respect to a document, the parties should file an unredacted version of the document
20
within 7 days of this order.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2017
23
24
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?