Miller v. Amazon.com, LLC

Filing 75

ORDER AFFORDING DEFENDANT OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUPPLEMENT TO DECLARATION RE: PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL. Defendant's supplement, if any, shall be filed no later than March 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 26, 2019. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2019)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
JASMINE MILLER,

8

Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

AMAZON.COM INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendant.

12

Case No. 17-cv-03488-MMC
ORDER AFFORDING DEFENDANT
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE
SUPPLEMENT TO DECLARATION
RE: PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT
UNDER SEAL

13
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Administrative Motion to File Document Under Seal,"

14
15

filed February 15, 2019, by which motion plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal an

16

unredacted version of the Fourth Amended Complaint ("4AC"),1 on the ground that said

17

unredacted version contains information defendant asserts is confidential.2

18

Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal

19

material designated confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion

20

for a sealing order, see Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e), and "[w]ithin 4 days of the filing of the

21

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration

22

. . . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable," see Civil L.R. 79-

23

5(e)(1).

24

//

25
26

1

27

2

28

A redacted version of the 4AC has been filed in the public record.

Plaintiff's counsel states he "has no personal knowledge as to why information in
the [4AC] is confidential or why it should be kept under seal." (See Marron Decl. ¶ 3.)

1

Here, although defendant has not filed a declaration in response to plaintiff's

2

administrative motion, it appears defendant is relying on a declaration by defendant's

3

counsel, filed February 5, 2019, in support of a stipulation to withdraw a prior version of

4

the 4AC, which pleading, according to said declarant, contained confidential information.

5

The Court next considers whether the above-referenced declaration establishes that the

6

operative 4AC, which version was filed after the above-referenced 4AC was withdrawn,

7

contains sealable material. See id.3

8

In his declaration, counsel states the 4AC includes "information about Amazon's

9

business that Amazon considers confidential, that has not been publicly disclosed, and
that was designated as 'Confidential' before being disclosed to [p]laintiff's counsel in

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovery in another litigation pursuant to the terms of a Protective Order." (See

12

Battenfeld Decl. ¶ 3.) Further, according to said declarant, public disclosure of the

13

subject information would "enable Amazon's competitors to imitate or possibly exploit

14

[such] information" (see id. ¶ 9), "would substantially undermine Amazon's ability to

15

compete in the market" (see id. ¶ 10), and "could place Amazon at a serious competitive

16

disadvantage" (see id.)

17

A party seeking to seal a "judicial record," such as portions of a complaint, "must

18

articulate compelling reasons supported by specific fact[s] . . . that outweigh the general

19

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

20

understanding the judicial process." See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

21

F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations, alteration and citations omitted);

22

see also, e.g., Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., 2014 WL 4145520, at *2 (N.D. Cal. August

23

20, 2014) (considering whether movant established "sufficiently compelling reasons" to

24

seal portions of proposed amended complaint). A showing that consists of "conclusory

25

statements about the content of the documents – that they are confidential and that, in

26
27
28

3

The version of the 4AC that was withdrawn and the operative version of the 4AC
are materially indistinguishable.
2

1

general, their production [to the public] would hinder [the designating party's] future

2

operations" – is insufficient to establish the requisite "compelling reasons." See

3

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182; see also Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026-27

4

(9th Cir. 2014) (holding "conclusory statement that publication of the [court document] will

5

injure the [designating party] in the industry and local community falls woefully short of

6

the kind of showing which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be kept

7

under seal") (internal quotation and citation omitted).

8
9

Here, the declaration on which defendant relies consists of general, conclusory
statements, and, consequently, is insufficient to establish that any portion of the 4AC is
properly filed under seal.4 Moreover, defendant's designations appear overbroad, as

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

some of the information designated confidential is publicly available in prior versions of

12

the complaint or in portions of the current version that have filed in the public record.

13

(Compare Third Amended Complaint at 15:18-27 with 4AC at 38:25-26; 4AC at 9:4-8 with

14

4AC at 18:20-23; 4AC at 2:18-19 with 4AC at 32:12);5 see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184

15

(affirming district court's decision denying request to seal portions of document that were

16

"already publicly available").

17

Under the circumstances, rather than deny the motion at this time, the Court will

18

afford defendant an opportunity to supplement its showing. Defendant's supplement, if

19

any, shall be filed no later than March 4, 2019.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: February 26, 2019.
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Defendant's disclosure of the information under the terms of a protective order is
not, by itself, sufficient to establish sealability. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A); see also Civil
L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
5

The above examples are intended to be illustrative rather than a comprehensive
listing of all such instances.
3