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)
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?