Nextracker, Inc. v. Array Technologies, Inc.

Filing 37

Order by Judge James Donato granting 27 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NEXTRACKER, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

13

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Defendant.

11
12

ORDER RE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 3:17-cv-06582-JD

This order resolves the pending administrative motion to file documents under seal filed by
plaintiff Nextracker, Inc. (“Nextracker”). Dkt. No. 27.

14

I.

Legal Standard

15

In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on

16

whether the request is being made in connection with a “dispositive” motion or a “non-

17

dispositive” motion.

18

For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

19

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that

20

presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)

21

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). This

22

standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy”

23

it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district court must

24

also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d

25

1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

26

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

27

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records

28

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of access

1

to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

2

materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citations omitted). Therefore, in that context, materials

3

may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under the

4

“good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331

5

F.3d at 1135-38). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to

6

competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair

7

advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at

8

*2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL

9

6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).

10

The distinction between dispositive and non-dispositive motions is not literal, but depends

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

on “whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto

12

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Motions that are “technically

13

nondispositive” yet “strongly correlative to the merits of a case” are subject to the presumption of

14

public access to judicial records. Id. at 1099.

15

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

16

requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s requirement

17

that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable

18

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” i.e., is “sealable.” Civil L.R.

19

79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

20

material.” Id.

21

II.

Discussion

22

The pending motion is associated with Nextracker’s complaint and defines the merits of

23

the case. Consequently, the “compelling reason” standard applies. Nextracker seeks to redact the

24

identities of named customers in order to prevent poaching by competitors. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 27-

25

3 at 8; Dkt. No. 27-1. The Court finds that this is a compelling reason and grants the motion to

26

file under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016)

27

(compelling reason to seal “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

28

competitive standing”).
2

1

III.

2

The motion to seal, Dkt. No. 27, is granted in full.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Conclusion

Dated: February 2, 2018

5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3