Actuate Corporation v. Construction Specialties Inc

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC.s 32 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

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

Pursuant to stipulation, this action was dismissed by order
11
entered September 12, 2012.

The Court notes, however, that an

12
administrative motion to seal of Defendant Construction
13
Specialties, Inc., remains pending.

Docket No. 32.

Defendant

14
moves to file under seal Exhibits G, K and L to the Declaration of
15
Craig S. Hilliard in support of its motion for partial summary
16
judgment.

As the basis for the motion, Defendant contends that

17
Plaintiff Actuate Corporation previously designated these items
18
“Confidential” under the Protective Order entered on March 28,
19
2011.

Plaintiff’s counsel James M. Lee has filed a declaration in

20
support of sealing the exhibits pursuant to this Court’s Local
21
Rule 79-5(d).

Docket 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 a

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

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

requesting the sealing order must articulate compelling reasons

6

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

7

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

8

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

9

process.”

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations and alterations

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

omitted).

“In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the

11

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep

12

certain judicial records secret.”

13

and alterations omitted).

14

Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).

“The party

Id. at 1179 (internal citations

Having reviewed the relevant exhibits and the Lee

15

declaration, it is evident that they contain confidential business

16

information and Plaintiff’s privacy interest in such information

17

outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure.

18

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

19

Defendant shall electronically file said exhibits under seal

20

pursuant to General Order 62 within seven days of the date of this

21

order.

22

Accordingly, the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: 9/24/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2