Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc
Filing
518
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING SYNCHRONOSS RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE 516 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2020)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
v.
DROPBOX INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING SYNCHRONOSS’
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 516
Defendants.
11
12
Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG
Pending before the Court is Synchronoss’ renewed motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 516.
13
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
14
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
15
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
16
447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). This requires a “particularized
17
showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex
18
rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed.
19
R. Civ. P. 26(c).
20
Synchronoss has provided good cause for sealing a single line in Synchronoss’ Opposition
21
to Dropbox’s motion for attorney’s fees because it contains reference to confidential business
22
information relating to the operations of Plaintiff. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No.
23
11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency
24
Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex
25
Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8,
26
2014). The Court originally denied Synchronoss’ motion to seal this specific potion since it is a
27
citation to a public regulation. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the disclosure of the
28
regulation inherently discloses the subject matter of the confidential material that it later found
1
sealable in the argument of the brief. See Dkt. No. 513 at 8–9 (sealing page 18, line 20 of the
2
opposition, which cites the same regulation). The renewed motion thus seeks uniformity in the
3
ruling and the Court agrees that sealing this limited portion is appropriate.
4
5
6
7
The Court finds good cause to seal the single line identified by Synchronoss and GRANTS
the renewed motion to seal.
Document Number
Public/(Sealed)
450/(449-4)
Portions Sought to be
Sealed
Page vii, line 7
Designating
Party
Synchronoss
Ruling
GRANT
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/25/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
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?