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