Actuate Corporation v. Construction Specialties Inc

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC.s 32 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ACTUATE CORPORATION, a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8
9
10

CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10,

No. C 10-4444 CW
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT
CONSTRUCTION
SPECIALTIES,
INC.’s MOTION TO
SEAL (Docket No.
32)

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Defendant Construction Specialties, Inc. filed an
11
administrative motion to seal pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule
12
79-5.

Docket No. 32.

The motion accompanied Defendant’s motion

13
for partial summary judgment.

Defendant seeks to file under seal

14
Exhibits G, K and L to the Declaration of Craig S. Hilliard in
15
support of its motion for partial summary judgment.

As the basis

16
for the motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff Actuate
17
Corporation previously designated these items “Confidential” under
18
the Protective Order entered on March 28, 2011.

Plaintiff’s

19
counsel James M. Lee has filed a declaration in support of sealing
20
the exhibits pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 79-5(d).

Docket

21
No. 44.
22
The Ninth Circuit has held that where a party seeks to file
23
under seal documents as part of a dispositive motion, the moving
24
party must demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the documents.
25
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th
26
Cir. 2006).

In general, when “‘court files might have become the

27
a vehicle for improper purposes’ such as the use of records to
28

1

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

2

statements, or release trade secrets,” there are “compelling

3

reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

4

disclosure.

5

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

6

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

7

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest

8

in understanding the judicial process.”

9

citations and alterations omitted).

Id. at 1179.

“The party requesting the sealing order

Id. at 1178-79 (internal

“In turn, the court must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and

11

the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

12

at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).

13

Id.

Having reviewed the relevant exhibits and the Lee

14

declaration, it is evident that they contain confidential business

15

information and Plaintiff’s privacy interest in such information

16

outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

17

motion to file Exhibits G, K and L under seal is granted and

18

Defendant shall electronically file said exhibits under seal.

19

Accordingly, the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:

9/6/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2