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)

Download PDF
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

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?