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)

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