Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL (in related case nos. 17-2177 and 17-2178). Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/14/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IN RE GLOBAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT
(SA) PTY. LTD.

No. C 17-02177 WHA
No. C 17-02178 WHA
No. C 17-02435 WHA

12
13

ORDER DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

14
15
16
17

/
Defendants in the above-captioned actions filed substantially similar briefs in opposition

18

to plaintiff’s counsel’s motions to withdraw. Defendants in Case Nos. 17-2177 and 17-2178

19

also filed administrative motions to file said briefs under seal, but defendants in Case No. 17-

20

2435 did not. Since the underlying motions to withdraw bore little or no relation to the merits

21

of these cases, only good cause is required to justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

22

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

23

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006).

24
25

As an initial matter, no good cause remains to seal any information already filed on the
public docket in Case No. 17-2435. Neither administrative motion took this into account.

26

Additionally, in Case No. 17-2177, defendants’ administrative motion and supporting

27

declaration simply assert, without further explanation, that the information sought to be filed

28

1

under seal has been designated “confidential” pursuant to a protective order (see Dkt. Nos. 105,

2

105-1). In our district, however, mere “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that

3

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

4

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Also, even if defendants

5

had offered a separate basis for sealing — which they did not — even a cursory review of their

6

request reveals that it is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material” as

7

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). As just one of many examples, defendants seek to redact

8

simple letters and numbers used in pinpoint citations (e.g., Dkt. No. 105-4 at 5 nn.1–4).

9

In Case No. 17-2178, defendant seeks to file under seal the entirety of its opposition
brief and attachments thereto. This request is not even close to “narrowly tailored to seek

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sealing only of sealable material” as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Moreover, the

12

administrative motion simply asserts, without further explanation, that “[t]hese documents

13

contain confidential settlement communications between the parties and sensitive business

14

information belonging to [defendant]” (Dkt. No. 73). The supporting declaration does not even

15

say that much (see Dkt. No. 73-1) and indeed makes no attempt whatsoever to establish that the

16

documents sought to be filed under seal in their entirety are actually sealable as required by

17

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A).

18

Both administrative motions to file under seal in Case Nos. 17-2177 and 17-2178 are

19

DENIED. Counsel in all three above-captioned actions shall fully comply with our Civil Local

20

Rules and heed all applicable standards governing sealing of court records in our circuit and

21

district in any future administrative motions to conceal said records from the public.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: September 14, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2