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
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?