ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Security One International, Inc. et al
Filing
215
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 211 Administrative Motion to Seal (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2013)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
6
7
8
9
Case No.: 11-CV-05149 YGR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
vs.
SECURITY ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
10
11
Plaintiff ADT Security Services, Inc., has filed an Administrative Motion to File Under
12
Seal Exhibits H, K and L of the Declaration of David Millstein in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
13
for Contempt. (Dkt. No. 211.) Defendant Security One International, Inc. (“Security One”) filed
14
a response in support of the motion. (Dkt. No. 214.)
15
Two very different standards govern motions to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565
16
F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 605
17
F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010). For most judicial records, the party seeking to seal the record must
18
demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records
19
and documents, including judicial records. Id. citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,
20
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006). However, a different standard applies to private documents
21
submitted in connection with non-dispositive motions, since such motions are often unrelated or
22
only tangentially related to the merits of the underlying claims. Id. at 1180; Kamakana, supra,
23
447 F.3d at 1179-80. The Rule 26(c) “good cause” standard applies to documents submitting in
24
connection with non-dispositive motions, such as discovery motions, and the court may seal the
25
documents “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
26
burden or expense.” Pintos, supra, 565 F.3d at 1116.
27
28
The Court finds this standard is met in connection to sealing the exhibits, solely for
purposes of briefing Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt. Here, the parties represent that the
1
documents sought to be sealed contain proprietary information and trade secrets of non-party
2
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Security Inc. (hereinafter “UTC”).
3
Counsel for UTC has advised Counsel for Security One that UTC considers these documents
4
“confidential” and that UTC does not want these documents in the public record. Filing the
5
document in the public record would disclose proprietary information, including pricing
6
information of a non-party. Sealing the documents in connection with briefing would not
7
interfere with the public’s right of access.
8
9
However, this Order does not permit any party to file any of the Exhibits under seal in
connection with a future proceeding. To the extent any Exhibit is offered at any hearing on the
10
Motion for Contempt, in connection with a future motion, or at trial, any party seeking to seal the
11
document will be required to make a new motion.
12
13
Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED. ADT has permission to file under seal Exhibits H, K
and L of the Declaration of David Millstein in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt.
14
This terminates Dkt. No. 211.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: June 25, 2013
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?