Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 215

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 206 Defendant Drop Box Inc.'s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Parties' August 22, 2018 Joint Letter Concerning Discovery Dispute. (kawlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2018)

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 215 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

DROPBOX INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-HSG (KAW)

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
DROPBOX, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF THE PARTIES'
AUGUST 22, 2018 JOINT LETTER
CONCERNING DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 206, 207

13

On August 22, 2018, Defendant Dropbox Inc. ("Defendant" or "Dropbox") filed an

14

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Parties' August 22, 2018 Joint Letter

15

Concerning Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 206) ("Motion to File Under Seal"). A redacted version

16

of the Joint Letter was also filed on August 22, 2018. (Dkt. No. 207.) An un-redacted version of

17

the Joint Letter accompanied the Motion to File Under Seal. (Dkt. No. 206-4.) For the reasons set

18

forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal.

19

I.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant Did Not Follow the Requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A)-(D) provides (emphasis added):
(d) Request to File Document, or Portions Thereof, Under Seal. A
party seeking to file a document, or portions thereof, under seal
(“the Submitting Party”) must:
(1) File an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, in
conformance with Civil L.R. 7-11. The administrative
motion must be accompanied by the following attachments:
(A) A declaration establishing that the document
sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are
sealable. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that
allows a party to designate certain documents as
confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The procedures detailed in
Civil L.R. 79-5(e) apply to requests to seal in which the sole
basis for sealing is that the document(s) at issue were
previously designated as confidential or subject to a

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 215 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 4

protective order.
(B) A proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal
only the sealable material, and which lists in table format
each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.
(C) A redacted version of the document that is sought
to be filed under seal. The redacted version shall prominently
display the notation “REDACTED VERSION OF
DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED.” A redacted
version need not be filed if the submitting party is seeking to
file the entire document under seal.
(D) An unredacted version of the document sought to
be filed under seal. The unredacted version must indicate, by
highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the
document that have been omitted from the redacted version,
and prominently display the notation “UNREDACTED
VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE
SEALED.” The unredacted version may be filed under seal
pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(c) before the sealing order is
obtained.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

While Defendant complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B)-(D) in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

filing its Motion to File Under Seal, it did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A).
12
Namely, in the Declaration (Dkt. No. 206-1) attached to Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal,
13
Attorney Jonathan A. Patchen states, in paragraph 3, that "Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), the
14
following table identifies the portions of the Motion that contain or refer to information that was
15
designated 'Attorneys' Eyes Only'." (Id. at 1.) However, this statement is not sufficient to establish
16
that portions of the Joint Letter are sealable because "Attorneys' Eyes Only" is a confidentiality
17
designation established in the Stipulated Protective Order. (See Stip. Prot. Ord., Dkt. No. 127 at 318
8, 11-13, 15, 22, 25-26, 28, 30.) Therefore, Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal does not
19
comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A).
20
II.

Defendant Has Not Established Good Cause for Sealing Portions of the Joint Letter.

21
When a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of
22
23
24
25

"good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Verinata Health, Inc. v.
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-05501-SI, 2014 WL 12647906, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014)
(citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006)); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ("The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or

26

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.") In addition, all

27

requests to file under seal must be "narrowly tailored," such that only sealable information is

28

sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).
2

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 215 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 4

Moreover, to make the showing of good cause, the moving party must make a

1
2

"particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm" will result if the information is

3

disclosed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186; accord Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.

4

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). "Broad allegations of harm,

5

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" are insufficient to establish good

6

cause. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
Here, the redacted portions of the Joint Letter do not seem to reference particularly

7
8
9
10

sensitive information, especially considering how the company names redacted within Dropbox's
section of the Joint Letter (Dkt. No. 206-4 at 2-3) are unredacted and publicly disclosed in
Synchronoss's section (Dkt. No. 206-4 at 4). In fact, the redacted information appears to be quite
broad as well as publicly available. (Id.) Hence, Defendant has not provided a sufficient,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

"narrowly tailored" showing of good cause because it has not made a "particularized showing" that
12
"specific prejudice or harm" will result if the information is disclosed, especially when portions of
13

that information have already been publicly disclosed by Plaintiff in the Joint Letter.

14
15
16

Reiterating the analysis above, good cause also "cannot be established simply by showing
that the document is subject to a protective order" or by stating, in general terms, that "the material
is considered to be confidential." Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-4147-CW, 2011 WL 482767, at

17

*1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). Accordingly, Defendant has not established good cause by referring

18

to the "Attorneys' Eyes Only" confidentiality designation in the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt.

19

No. 127) as the only basis for sealing portions of the Joint Letter. (Dkt. No. 206-1 at 1.)

20

III.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Synchronoss Has Not Filed a Declaration within Four Days of August 22, 2018.
Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) provides (emphasis added):
(e) Documents Designated as Confidential or Subject to a Protective
Order. If the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a
document designated as confidential by the opposing party or a nonparty pursuant to a protective order, or a document containing
information so designated by an opposing party or a non-party, the
Submitting Party's declaration in support of the Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal must identify the document or portions
thereof which contain the designated confidential material and
identify the party that has designated the material as confidential
(“the Designating Party”). The declaration must be served on the
Designating Party on the same day it is filed and a proof of such
service must also be filed.
3

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 215 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

(1) Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion
to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a
declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A)
establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.
(2) If the Designating Party does not file a responsive
declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the
Submitting Party may file the document in the public
record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days,
after the motion is denied. A Judge may delay the public
docketing of the document upon a showing of good cause.
Here, it is clear that the Designating Party is Plaintiff Synchronoss because Synchronoss

8

has designated the material to be redacted as containing confidential information. (See Dkt. No.

9

206-1 at 1.) However, today's date, August 29, 2018, is undeniably later than August 26, 2018,

10

which is four (4) days after August 22, 2018, the date that Defendant Dropbox's Motion to File

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Under Seal was filed with the Court. As a result, Plaintiff's failure to file a declaration by August

12
13
14
15
16

26, 2018 renders Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal and the entire Joint Letter sealing
mechanism noncompliant with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Nonetheless, because Defendant's
Motion to File Under Seal has been denied, Defendant Dropbox will be afforded the opportunity
to file the unredacted Joint Letter in the public record no earlier than four (4) days (September 4,
2018) and no later than ten (10) days (September 10, 2018) after the motion is denied.
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to File Under Seal is DENIED.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: August 29, 2018
19

__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4