TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation

Filing 571

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING ( 559 , 561 , 566 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL(Granting 559 , 561 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Denying 566 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and TRANSLATIONS.COM, INC., 6 7 No. C 10-2590 CW ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiffs, v. 8 MOTIONPOINT CORP., 9 Defendant. ________________________________/ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to 12 seal. 13 under seal only if a party establishes that the portions sought to 14 be sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 15 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” 16 5(b). 17 sealable material. 18 designating party's declaration establishing that the information 19 is sealable. 20 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be filed Civ. L.R. 79- Any sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only Id. The request must be supported by the Id. subsection (d). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to 21 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 22 records and documents.’” 23 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 24 request, the Court begins with “a strong presumption of access 25 [as] the starting point.” 26 under seal in this case are related to the parties’ calculations 27 of the amount of post-verdict royalties due. 28 seal materials related to non-dispositive motions must show good Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Id. In considering a sealing The documents sought to be filed A party seeking to 1 cause by making a “particularized showing” that “specific 2 prejudice or harm will result” should the information be 3 disclosed. 4 conclusory allegations of potential harm” will not suffice. 5 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 6 2003). 7 I. 8 9 Id. at 1179-80; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “[B]road, Docket Nos. 559 and 561 Both parties have filed administrative motions to file under seal unredacted versions of their separate filings related to 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Foltz their calculations of post-verdict royalties due. The motions to 11 seal are based on MotionPoint’s assertion that its revenue 12 information is confidential. 13 Although MotionPoint did not file a declaration in support of 14 TransPerfect’s motion to seal the revenue information, it did file 15 a declaration in support of its own motion. 16 declaration supports a finding that the revenue information is 17 highly sensitive and confidential business information that is not 18 ordinarily disclosed and because MotionPoint and TransPerfect seek 19 to seal same information, the Court will GRANT both parties’ 20 motions to seal. 21 responsible for filing declarations in support of motions to seal 22 filed by other parties based on its confidentiality designations. 23 In this case, the material was limited and the Court was able to 24 determine that the declaration MotionPoint filed in support of its 25 own motion applied equally to TransPerfect’s motion. 26 this will not always be the case. Because the However, MotionPoint is advised that it is 27 28 2 However, 1 2 II. Docket No. 566 TransPerfect has also filed a motion to file under seal 3 unredacted versions of Exhibits 1-3, 5 and 6 to the declaration of 4 Gabriel Gross filed in support of TransPerfect’s objections and 5 response to MotionPoint’s calculation of post-verdict royalites. 6 TransPerfect states that these documents contain information 7 designated by MotionPoint as confidential. 8 9 Because the public interest favors filing all court documents in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. 11 established simply by showing that the information has been 12 designated as confidential, but rather must be supported by a 13 sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 14 file each document under seal. 15 party wishes to file a document that has been designated as 16 confidential by another party or to refer to such information in a 17 memorandum or other filing, it is required to file and serve an 18 administrative motion seeking a sealing order. 19 5(d). 20 establishing that the document is sealable within four days 21 thereafter. 22 This cannot be See Local Rule 79-5(a). If a See Local Rule 79- The designating party then must file a declaration See Local Rule 79-5(e). MotionPoint has not filed a declaration in support of the 23 motion to seal as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES TransPerfect’s motions to seal 25 (Docket No. 566). 26 MotionPoint shall file these exhibits to the declaration in the 27 public record. Within four days of the date of this order, 28 3 1 2 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the motions to 3 seal at Docket Numbers 559 and 561 and DENIES the motion to seal 4 at Docket Number 566. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 Dated: December 16, 2014 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?