Guo v. Woodman et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting #7 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WENDUO GUO,

Case No. 18-cv-00920-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

v.
9
10

NICHOLAS WOODMAN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

INTRODUCTION

14

Plaintiff Wenduo Guo moves to file under seal portions of his Complaint that contain

15

information which Defendant GoPro, Inc. designated as confidential pursuant to a Confidentiality

16

and Non-Disclosure Agreement (the “Agreement”). Mot., Dkt. No. 7; see Compl., Dkt. No. 1;

17

Unredacted Compl., Dkt. No. 11-2. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant

18

legal authority, the Court issues the following order.

19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and

21

documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

23

(9th Cir. 2003)). To seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

24

related to the merits of a case,” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098

25

(9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016), a

26

party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” Kamakana, 447

27

F.3d at 1178 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, such showing is required

28

even where “the [] motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective

1
2

order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
The strong presumption of public access to judicial documents applies to such motions

3

because the resolution of a dispute on the merits is at the heart of the interest in ensuring that the

4

public understands the judicial process. Id. The presumption does not apply in the same way to

5

motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto

6

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. With such motions, “the usual presumption of the public’s right of

7

access is rebutted.” Id. at 1179 (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th

8

Cir. 2002). A party seeking to seal documents attached to such motions nevertheless must meet

9

the lower “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c). Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,
678 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires the party to make a “particularized showing” that “specific

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prejudice or harm” will result if the information is disclosed. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. “Broad

12

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy

13

the Rule 26(c) test.” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th

14

Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and edits omitted).

15

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) also requires that a sealing request “must be narrowly tailored to

16

seek sealing only of sealable material.” “Where a party seeks to file under seal a document

17

designated as confidential by the opposing party pursuant to a protective order, the designating

18

party must submit a declaration establishing the material sought to be sealed is sealable. Civ. L.R.

19

79-5(e)(1).
DISCUSSION

20
21

The Court applies the compelling reasons standard to this sealing request. See Ojmar US,

22

LLC v. Sec. People, Inc., 2016 WL 6091543, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016) (“Although the Ninth

23

Circuit appears not to have explicitly stated what standard applies to the sealing of a complaint,

24

many courts in this district and elsewhere have found that the compelling reasons standard

25

applies.” (collecting cases)).

26

GoPro counsel Marie Bafus declares the proposed redactions “purport[] to refer to, quote,

27

and characterize documents produced by GoPro” at Plaintiff’s request and pursuant to the

28

Agreement. Bafus Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Dkt. No. 11; see Agreement, Dkt. No. 7-2. The information
2

1

contained therein is “competitively sensitive” and relates to “product-specific financial sales and

2

information, as well as product-specific marketing and launch strategies” which GoPro “takes

3

great measure to keep . . . confidential.” Bafus Decl. ¶ 4. The proposed redactions also concern

4

“confidential information contained in Board meeting agendas, minutes, packages, and

5

presentations” and “product information regarding GoPro’s Karma product[.]” Id. ¶ 7. If made

6

public, this information would provide GoPro’s competitors with insight as to “GoPro’s business

7

strategy . . . , GoPro’s and its suppliers’ capacity to build certain products, . . . the value of

8

GoPro’s business in certain product areas[,]” and information and marketing strategies. Id. ¶ 9.

9

This would allow competitors to compete more effectively against GoPro and cause GoPro

10

competitive harm. Id.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GoPro has demonstrated specific harm may result if this confidential information is made

12

public and thus has established compelling reasons for sealing. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail

13

Litig., 2014 WL 10537440, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (finding compelling reasons support

14

sealing where moving party established specific ways information could cause harm if publicly

15

disclosed). Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

16

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: February 21, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3