Benton v. Clarity Services, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/10/2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOYCE BENTON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-06583-MMC

v.
CLARITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON
DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 64

12
13
14
15

Before the Court is defendant Clarity Services, Inc.’s (“Clarity”) unopposed
“Administrative Motion to Seal,” filed December 28, 2017.
“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the

16

document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

17

entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be

18

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See id.

19

By the instant motion, Clarity seeks leave to file under seal twelve documents

20

submitted in connection with Clarity’s motion for summary judgment. The Court, having

21

reviewed the declaration filed in support thereof, finds Clarity has shown good cause

22

exists to seal six of those twelve documents, specifically, Exhibits CC, A, G, F, M, and R

23

to the “Declaration of Sean Dunham in Support of Clarity Services, Inc.’s Motion for

24

Summary Judgment” (“Dunham Declaration”).

25

As to Exhibits H, J, K, and T through V to the Dunham Declaration, however,

26

Clarity has not made a sufficient showing that said exhibits are sealable in their entirety.

27

In that regard, Clarity states the exhibits “include commercially sensitive information”

28

(see David M. Gettings Decl. ¶ 5), but, with the exception of “product pricing information”

1

(see id.), which the Court agrees is appropriately filed under seal, Clarity has not

2

identified such sensitive information, let alone explained why any such information is

3

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the

4

law,” see Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

5

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

6

1. To the extent Clarity seeks an order sealing (a) Exhibits CC, A, G, F, M, and R

7

to the Dunham declaration, and (b) the portions of Exhibits H, J, K, and T through V

8

pertaining to product pricing information, the motion to seal is hereby GRANTED.

9

2. To the extent Clarity seeks an order sealing the balance of Exhibits H, J, K, and
T through V, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling and affords Clarity leave to file, no later

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

than January 24, 2018, one or more declaration(s) in support of the sealing thereof.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 10, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2