Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. Go Home Ltd.
Filing
10
Order by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 7 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Public unredacted version of Plaintiffs' complaint due September 18, 2015. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., et al.,
7
Case No. 15-cv-03960-JCS
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
GO HOME LTD.,
10
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF
COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 7
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
On September 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file portions of their
12
13
complaint under seal, arguing that sealing is appropriate under the “compelling reasons” standard
14
applied by the Ninth Circuit. See Mot. (dkt. 7) at 2 (citing, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
15
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).1 Plaintiffs contend that portions of paragraphs 1,
16
6, 7, 14, and 26 of the complaint should remain under seal because they reveal “sensitive business
17
terms” of a confidential settlement agreement, “the disclosure of which would harm [Plaintiffs]
18
and the Defendant” by “provid[ing] other defendants who infringe [Plaintiffs’] intellectual
19
property rights an improper advantage” in negotiating settlement agreements. Id. at 3.
20
Plaintiffs’ argument is not persuasive. The terms at issue concern (1) the forum selection
21
clause of the settlement agreement, Compl. ¶¶ 6−7; and (2) Defendant’s purported agreement not
22
to sell products that infringe one of Plaintiffs’ patents, id. ¶¶ 1, 14, 26. Neither of these terms
23
would provide any significant leverage to Plaintiffs’ future negotiating partners if disclosed.
24
Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating compelling reasons to seal, sufficient
25
to defeat the “strong presumption in favor of [public] access” to court filings. See Kamakana, 447
26
1
27
28
The Ninth Circuit recognizes an exception to this standard, requiring a lower showing of “good
cause” for sealing discovery documents produced pursuant to a protective order and attached to
non-dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179−80. Plaintiffs do not argue that this
exception applies to their complaint. See Mot. at 2.
1
F.3d at 1178 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs are
2
ORDERED to file an unredacted version of their complaint in the public record no later than
3
September 18, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2). This Order need not and does not address whether
4
sealing other provisions of the alleged settlement agreement may be warranted if either party seeks
5
to introduce such provisions under seal at a later stage of this case.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
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
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?