Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc.

Filing 102

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE 83 MOTION TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 83

EGNYTE, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00120-HSG

12
13

Pending before the Court is an unopposed administrative motion to seal information filed

14

by Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“Synchronoss”) relating to Plaintiff’s opening claim

15

construction brief. See Dkt. No. 83 (“Mot.”). The Court GRANTS the motion.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

18

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

19

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

20

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

21

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

22

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this strong

23

presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

24

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

25

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations,

26

quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh

27

the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files

28

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private

1

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

2

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must:

3

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who
seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must
base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

4
5
6

Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

7
8

to file under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

9

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must
be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Courts

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license agreements, financial

12

terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the

13

“compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017

14

WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed]

15

competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v.

16

Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015).

17

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

18

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

19

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records need

20

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific

22

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

23

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

24

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

25
26

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to file under seal two documents accompanying its opening claim

27

construction brief. See Pl. Mot. at 1; Dkt. Nos. 83-5, 83-6. Plaintiff contends that its sealing

28

request relates to a non-dispositive motion, and thus that the “good cause” standard applies to its
2

1

request. See Mot. at 1. The Court, however, finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies

2

because the documents to be sealed bear more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case.

3

See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc., No.

4

214CV08723ODWPJWX, 2016 WL 3176557, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (“Far from being

5

‘tangentially related’ to a patent infringement suit, the court’s construction of the terms of the

6

patent claim is often critical to the outcome of such a suit.”).

7

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s sealing request satisfies that standard. Plaintiff’s

8

declaration in support of sealing states that the concerned documents comprise “highly

9

confidential and proprietary information belonging to Synchronoss constituting sensitive
proprietary business information about the architecture of Synchronoss’s technology that is not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

publicly available or publicly disclosed and has been maintained by Synchronoss in a confidential

12

manner.” Dkt. No. 83-1 (“Eskandari Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4. Plaintiff indicates that disclosure of this

13

information “could result in an unfair economic competitive advantage” to Plaintiff’s competitors.

14

Id.; see Miotox LLC, 2016 WL 3176557, at *2 (finding “compelling reasons” to seal where

15

publicly disclosing the plaintiff’s exhibit would “undermine [the plaintiff’s] position in the

16

marketplace”); In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017).

17

Plaintiff has narrowly tailored its sealing request to cover only information for which there is good

18

cause to seal.

19

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil

20

Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), those documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are

21

granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions

22

accompanying the administrative motions.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/27/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
3