Slovin v. Sunrun, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 99 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 101 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

LYNN SLOVIN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.15-cv-05340-YGR (JSC)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.
SUNRUN, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101

Defendants.

12
13

Now pending before the Court are Administrative Motions to Seal filed in connection with

14

the parties’ June 1, 2017 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101.) Under Local Rule

15

79-5(a) sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or

16

portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

17

under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79–5(a). A party must “narrowly tailor” its request to

18

sealable material only. Id.

19

Plaintiffs seek sealing of Exhibits C and E to the letter brief because Defendants

20

designated these documents as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. Under Civil

21

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) Defendants were therefore required within “4 days of the filing of the

22

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal... [to file] a declaration as required by subsection 79-

23

5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Defendants have failed to

24

do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 99.)

25

Defendants seek sealing of portions of the Declaration of Lauri A. Mazzuchetti and

26

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 thereto. Defendants contend that portions of the Mazzuchetti Declaration and

27

Exhibits 2-3 contain proprietary business and calling records of Defendants “disclosure of which

28

might place Defendants at a disadvantage with respect to their existing and potential competitors,

1

who would gain access to marketing and lead information contained therein.” (Dtk. No. 101 at ¶

2

3; Dkt. No. 1-101-1 at 2:24.) Defendants also seek sealing of Exhibit 4 which is Plaintiff Samuel

3

Katz’s Second Supplemental Response to Defendant Sunrun Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories.

4

(Dkt. No. 101-4.) Defendants’ motion to seal is neither narrowly tailored nor does it describe with

5

sufficient particularity the confidential business information which is properly sealable. The Court

6

agrees that Exhibit 2, which appears to be a screenshot of Defendants’ database, contains

7

proprietary business information; however, the same cannot be said for the Mazzuchetti

8

Declaration or Exhibit 3 to the deposition testimony of Matthew James Snider. Likewise,

9

although Defendants contend that sealing of Exhibit 4 is appropriate because it contains Plaintiff’s
phone number, the exhibit is 13 pages long and contains lots of information that is not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

confidential. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal

12

on a proper showing as to the Mazzuchetti Declaration, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The motion is

13

granted as to Exhibit 2.

14

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 99 and 101.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2017

18
19
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2