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