Hatamian et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al
Filing
229
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part #207 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et
al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 207
Defendants.
12
13
Now pending before the Court is Lead Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal a
14
joint discovery letter regarding depositions and materials filed in support of that letter. (Dkt. No.
15
207.) By Order of September 1, 2016, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s request for discovery
16
relief but did not rule on the sealing request (Dkt. No. 210), which the Court addresses here.
17
There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.
18
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “It is well-established that the fruits of pre-
19
trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public. [Federal
20
Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption where ‘good
21
cause’ is shown.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th
22
Cir.1999). Sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document,
23
or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
24
under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). A party must “narrowly tailor” its request to sealable
25
material only. Id.
26
Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal the joint discovery letter in its entirety, along with two
27
documents—Schedules B and C—filed in support of the letter. (Dkt. No. 207.) Plaintiffs argue
28
that these documents should be sealed in their entirety because they incorporate material
1
designated “Confidential” subject to the parties’ Protective Order (Dkt. No. 136). Sealing an
2
entire document is appropriate where it contains almost exclusively protected information. So it is
3
with Schedules A and B filed in support of the letter; Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART to
4
file these documents under seal. But not so with this discovery letter itself. The bulk of the letter
5
is legal argument and references only categories or types of protected information—e.g., financial
6
metrics, sales forecasting and analysis, and supply allocation decisions—without divulging the
7
actual confidential information itself. Plaintiffs shall submit by November 4, 2016 a version of
8
the letter with narrowly tailored redactions.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2016
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
___________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
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?