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)

Download PDF
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?