SunPower Corporation v. SunEdison, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 4 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUNPOWER CORPORATION,

Case No. 15-cv-02462-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

9
10

SUNEDISON, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff SunPower Corporation seeks leave to file an unredacted version of its complaint

14

and Exhibit H to the complaint under seal. Dkt. No. 4. SunPower’s motion is DENIED

15

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

16

Courts have long recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and

17

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

18

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right is not absolute. To balance the competing interests of the

19

public’s right of access against litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to file materials

20

related to dispositive motions under seal must provide “compelling reasons” to do so. Kamakana

21

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).

22

Courts in this District treat a complaint as a dispositive motion for sealing purposes. See,

23

e.g., Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3,

24

2014); Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13-cv-04613-BLF, 2014 WL 4145520, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

25

Aug. 20, 2014). Moreover, the material that SunPower seeks to redact is material to at least its

26

claims for breach of contract and conversion. Accordingly, to seal the complaint and its Exhibit

27

H, SunPower must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,”

28

providing the court with “articulable facts” identifying the particular interests favoring secrecy and

1

showing how those interests outweigh the “strong presumption” favoring disclosure. Kamakana,

2

447 F.3d at 1178-81. In general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the

3

materials “might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite,

4

promote public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. “The mere fact that the

5

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

6

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

7

In support of its motion, SunPower states only that the unredacted complaint “includes

8

portions that are confidential as they disclose information contained in a confidential agreement”

9

between SunPower and the defendant and that Exhibit H is a copy of the confidential agreement.
Dkt. No. 4-1 ¶¶ 4, 6. That is insufficient. If SunPower still wishes to seal its complaint and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Exhibit H to the complaint, it must submit a new declaration within 21 days of this order that

12

articulates “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that justify sealing.

13

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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