MacKinnon v. Logitech Inc. et al

Filing 90

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying without prejudice 85 Motion to file document under seal. Defendants may, if they wish, file a revised, narrowly tailored request for sealing by 04/20/17. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ROBERT MACKINNON, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 v. LOGITECH INC., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05231-TEH ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL Defendants. 9 Plaintiff Robert MacKinnon seeks to file under seal portions of the deposition 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 transcript of Craig Malloy. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 85) was brought under Civil Local 12 Rule 79-5(e) because Defendants designated the entire deposition as confidential. 13 Defendants timely filed the declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), but 14 the Court finds that declaration to be woefully deficient. Defendants contend, in the most 15 summary fashion, that “Mr. Malloy’s testimony contains confidential and proprietary 16 information. The testimony also contains information that could infringe on the privacy 17 rights of Plaintiff and/or third party individuals. All of the designated material is sealable.” 18 Perry Decl. ¶ 3 (ECF No. 89-1). It defies credibility that Malloy’s entire deposition is 19 sealable. Defendants also state that “[t]he parties agreed that Mr. Malloy’s deposition 20 testimony was to be designated confidential pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective 21 order.” Id. ¶ 2. However, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 22 party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 23 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 24 “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive 25 motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support 26 secrecy.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 27 Defendants have not come close to meeting that burden here. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 28 motion to file under seal is DENIED. 1 Defendants may, if they wish, file a revised, narrowly tailored request for sealing. 2 Any such response must comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1) and 3 be filed by April 20, 2017. If Defendants fail to file a timely revised request, then 4 Plaintiff shall file Exhibit A to the April 11, 2017 Declaration of Matthew J. Wayne in the 5 public record without redaction, and without further order from this Court. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: 04/17/17 _____________________________________ THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 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?