Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey, et al

Filing 201

ORDER DENYING SEALING MOTIONS by Judge Alsup denying 181 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 183 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 188 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TOTAL RECALL TECHNOLOGIES,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
PALMER LUCKEY and OCULUS VR,
LLC, as successor-in-interest to Oculus
VR, Inc.,

ORDER DENYING
SEALING MOTIONS

Defendants.
/

16
17

No. C 15-02281 WHA

Both sides seek leave to file under seal several documents submitted in connection with

18

the recent order to show cause and plaintiff’s motion seeking relief from the prior order on

19

defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 183, 188, 197). The documents in question are central

20

to potentially dispositive motions and so may only be sealed if there are “compelling reasons”

21

to keep the information confidential. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d

22

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

23

The documents sought to be sealed are the settlement agreement between the Thomas

24

Seidl and Ron Igra (the founding partners of Total Recall), and other documents reflecting the

25

terms of that agreement. The agreement is confidential by its terms, and as such may not be

26

“disclosed or otherwise revealed . . . except as required by law or order of the court.” Pursuant

27

to the terms of the agreement, it was produced to defendants on the condition that it be treated

28

as “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order in this action.

1
2
3

Defendants seek to seal these documents only because they are required to do so under
the protective order.
Plaintiff’s declarations submitted in support of its own motions are striking inasmuch as

4

they describe the “compelling reasons” standard in detail but decline to apply it. Instead, they

5

simply state that “good cause” exists to seal the documents. The only reason provided for

6

sealing the documents in question is that they are “non-public” and designated confidential or

7

highly confidential under the protective order. Counsel for Total Recall notes that “Thomas

8

Seidl has insisted on full compliance with the Settlement Agreement, including its

9

confidentiality provisions” (188-1 ¶ 4; 190 ¶ 3; 197-1 ¶ 4).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Seidl, a third party, did not file a supporting declaration, although the motions were
served on his counsel (Dkt. Nos. 184, 186, 191, 200). The deadline to respond has long passed.
Nothing on the face of the settlement agreements indicates why they should be sealed.
Accordingly, the parties motions for leave to file various documents under seal are DENIED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated: January 31, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2