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)

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 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?