TransPerfect Global, Inc. et al v. MotionPoint Corporation
Filing
577
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING 573 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015)
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
MOTION TO SEAL
Plaintiffs,
v.
8
MOTIONPOINT CORP.,
9
Defendant.
________________________________/
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Before the Court is MotionPoint Corporation’s administrative
12
motion to seal Exhibit Six to the Declaration of Gabriel Gross
13
(Gross Declaration) filed in support of TransPerfect’s Objections
14
and Response to MotionPoint’s Calculation of Post-Verdict
15
Royalties.
16
filed under seal only if a party establishes that the portions
17
sought to be sealed “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret
18
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”
19
5(b).
20
sealable material.
21
designating party’s declaration establishing that the information
22
is sealable.
23
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, a document may be
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
24
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
25
records and documents.’”
26
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
27
request, the Court begins with “a strong presumption of access
28
[as] the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
Id.
In considering a sealing
The document sought to be filed
1
under seal in this case is related to the parties’ calculations of
2
the amount of post-verdict royalties due.
3
materials related to non-dispositive motions must show good cause
4
by making a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or
5
harm will result” should the information be disclosed.
6
1179-80; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
7
of potential harm” will not suffice.
8
Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).
9
A party seeking to seal
Id. at
“[B]road, conclusory allegations
Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
11
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.
12
established simply by showing that the information has been
13
designated as confidential, but rather must be supported by a
14
sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
15
file each document under seal.
16
party wishes to file a document that has been designated as
17
confidential by another party or to refer to such information in a
18
memorandum or other filing, it is required to file and serve an
19
administrative motion seeking a sealing order.
20
5(d).
21
establishing that the document is sealable within four days
22
thereafter.
23
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).
A motion to seal this document, filed by TransPerfect, was
24
previously denied because MotionPoint, as the designating party,
25
did not file a declaration establishing that the document is
26
sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).
27
now filed its own motion to seal the document.
28
GRANTED because the document contains revenue information that is
2
MotionPoint has
The motion is
1
highly sensitive and confidential business information that is not
2
ordinarily disclosed.
3
4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the motion to
5
seal at Docket No. 573.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated:
January 15, 2015
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
3
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?