Ojmar US, LLC v. Security People, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING THE PARTIES ADMINISTRATIVE ( 19 , 43 , 47 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OJMAR US, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-04948-HSG
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 43, 47

Pending before the Court are three administrative motions, Dkt. Nos. 19, 43, 47, to file

12
13

under seal certain documents relating to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Asil T.

14

Gokcebay and Security People, Inc., Dkt. No. 21 (“Mot. to Dismiss”), the motion for preliminary

15

injunction filed by Plaintiff Ojmar U.S., LLC, Dkt. No. 44 (“PI Mot.”), and the opposition thereto

16

filed by Defendants, Dkt. No. 49 (“PI Opp.”). The administrative motions to file under seal are

17

unopposed. See Dkt. Nos. 20, 48. Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions,

18

the Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file under seal.

19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

20

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

21

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

22

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

23

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

24

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

25

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

26

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

27

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

28

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79

1

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

2

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

3

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

4

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

5

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must

6

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

7

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

8

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

9

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal

10

quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

13

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request

14

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

15

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

16

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

17

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must

18

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at

19

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or

20

harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

21

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

22

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

23

II.

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the documents at issue

24
25

have more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

26

1101. The Court rules as follows:

27

//

28

//
2

1

Motion
19

2

19

3

19

4

43
43
43
43

5
6

47

7
8

III.

Document
Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 3, Ex. C at
5
Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 4, Ex. C at
5
Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 5, Ex. C at
5
PI Mot, Ex. 16 at 51
PI Mot, Ex. 17 at 52
PI Mot, Ex. 18 at 53
Oonk Decl. ISO PI Mot. ¶¶ 18,
40
Gokcebay Decl. ISO PI Opp. ¶¶
9-15

GRANTED

Ruling

Reason
Confidential Business Terms

GRANTED

Confidential Business Terms

GRANTED

Confidential Business Terms

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

Confidential Business Terms
Confidential Business Terms
Confidential Business Terms
Confidential Business Information

GRANTED

Confidential Business Information

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file under

9

seal the specified documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), the documents filed under

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seal will remain under seal and the public will have access only to the redacted versions

12

accompanying the parties’ motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: 1/26/2017

15
16
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Exhibits 16-18 of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction are identical to Exhibits 3-5 of
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, respectively.
2
Id.
3
Id.
3