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)

Download PDF
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

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?