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)

Download PDF
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?