GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc.

Filing 231

ORDER ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEALgranting 124 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 129 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 147 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 193 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 195 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 200 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 207 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 228 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/3/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GOPRO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

9

v.

10

360HEROS, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01944-SI

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 228, 217, 207, 201, 200, 195,
193, 147, 129, 124

12
13

In support of their motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, and motions for

14

sanctions, the parties submitted numerous administrative motions to file certain materials under

15

seal. With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,”

16

courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State

17

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents

18

under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, or a motion “more than tangentially related to

19

the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.

20

2016), the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling reasons supported by

21

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

22

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana

23

v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and

24

quotation marks omitted). Generally, however, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a

25

non-dispositive motion only tangentially related to the merits of a case, a showing of “good cause”

26

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

27

F.3d at 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

28

1

The Court has reviewed each of the administrative motions and finds there to be good

2

cause and compelling reasons to seal the majority of the requested materials. Accordingly, the

3

Court GRANTS docket nos. 217, 207, 200, 195, and 124.
In docket nos. 129 and 147, 360Heros seeks to seal information because GoPro has

5

designated that information confidential under the parties’ protective order. See Dkt. Nos. 129,

6

147. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), if a submitting party seeks “to file under seal a

7

document designated as confidential by the opposing party . . . or a document containing

8

information so designated by an opposing party,” “[w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the

9

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

10

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

N.D. Cal. L.R. 79-5(e).

12

Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.

GoPro has not done so with respect to docket nos. 129, 147.

13

As to docket nos. 193 and 201, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions to seal and requests

14

for sanctions. In docket no. 193, plaintiff contends defendant failed to file under seal materials

15

marked Confidential or Highly-Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only by plaintiff and related third-

16

parties. Plaintiff asks the Court for administrative relief requiring 360Heros to re-file the motions

17

under seal and also asks the Court to award plaintiff fees and costs incurred in addressing the

18

violation.

19

failed to request sealing of four exhibits it corrected the error by filing a subsequent motion to seal

20

(Dkt. No. 200). In addition, defendant contests whether the remaining exhibits in dispute warrant

21

sealing. Defendant argues the exhibits are either documents of 360Heros or are otherwise public

22

and not confidential. The Court finds that good cause has not been shown and DENIES the

23

motion at docket no. 193. In docket no. 201, plaintiff supplements its prior motion to seal (Dkt.

24

No. 193) and argues it has identified additional exhibits containing information that 360Heros

25

improperly filed. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court finds that good cause has not been

26

shown and DENIES the motion at docket no. 201.

Defendant has filed an opposition to the motion and contends that while defendant

27

Court further notes that plaintiff has sought to seal portions of the parties’ March 23, 2018

28

hearing transcript. See Dkt. No. 228. This request is DENIED. Material that has been publicly
2

1

disclosed cannot be protected. In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig.., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2014 WL

2

10537440, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014). Here, the parties did not request the courtroom be

3

closed. The Court will not allow an ex post facto redaction of statements made in open court in

4

the transcript. Id.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: April 3, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
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
3