Flow Motion Group, Inc. et al v. Android Jones, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER regarding 2 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiffs shall serve the materials at issue on all parties that can claim a confidentiality interest in them no later than August 30, 2016. Any party may file a declaration setting forth compelling reasons for sealing no later than September 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on August 23, 2016. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FLOW MOTION GROUP, INC., et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-04711-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

ANDROID JONES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs move under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 to file portions of their Complaint

13

and documents attached thereto under seal. Plaintiffs contend that the material at issue “must” be

14

filed under seal because its disclosure “could subject [Plaintiffs] to claims for breach of contract.”

15

Tyan Decl. (dkt. 2-1) ¶¶ 3−4; see generally Admin. Mot. (dkt. 2). Plaintiffs do not address

16

whether the information itself could cause harm to any party if disclosed, nor do they cite

17

authority for their position that contractual nondisclosure commitments alone support filing

18

portions of a complaint under seal.

19

Courts have long recognized a strong presumption of public access to court records.

20

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing, e.g., Nixon v.

21

warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597−98 & n.7 (1978)). A party seeking to overcome that

22

presumption generally must demonstrate “„compelling reasons‟” to file documents under seal

23

rather than in the public record. Id. at 1178−79 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

24

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To authorize sealing based only on a private agreement

25

among the parties to maintain confidentiality would permit an end run around the public‟s right of

26

access. Plaintiffs cite no reason for sealing other than contractual obligations, and no compelling

27

basis for sealing is obvious from the face of the material at issue.

28

The Court recognizes that the competing obligations of public access and private

1

confidentiality agreements place Plaintiffs in a difficult position. Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), which

2

governs the filing of documents designated as confidential by another party under a protective

3

order, provides a mechanism to balance those interests. The Court finds that procedure

4

appropriate for the material at issue here, although additional time is warranted at this early stage

5

of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are instructed to serve their administrative motion, this Order,

6

and the materials at issue on any person or entity that Plaintiffs believe can claim a confidentiality

7

interest in those materials no later than August 30, 2016. Any such party, including Plaintiffs,

8

may file a declaration no later than September 6, 2016 setting forth specific compelling reasons

9

why specific sensitive portions of the material should remain under seal. Such requests must be
narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b); see also In re Hewlett-Packard Co. S’holder Derivative

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Litig., No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB, ECF Doc. No. 411 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015). If no party files a

12

responsive declaration setting forth compelling reasons for sealing, the Court will deny Plaintiffs‟

13

administrative motion and order the Complaint and its attachments filed in the public record.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 23, 2016
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2