Ojmar US, LLC v. Security People, Inc. et al

Filing 134

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re Docket Nos. 119 , 124 and 127 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OJMAR US, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING IN
PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 119, 124, 127

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are three unopposed administrative motions to seal information

13
14

relating to Security People, Inc. (“Digilock”) and Asil Gokcebay’s (collectively, “Defendants”)

15

motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Ojmar U.S., LLC (“Ojmar”).

16

Dkt. Nos. 119, 124, 127. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motions to seal and

17

DENIES in part Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal.

18
19

I.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court must

5
6
7
8
9

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.
Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking
to file under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must

12

be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Courts

13

also “regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts with third parties that contain

14

proprietary and confidential business information.” See Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-

15

03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); In re Qualcomm Litig.,

16

No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (finding that

17

“license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business

18

strategies” containing “confidential business information” satisfied the “compelling reasons”

19

standard in part because sealing that information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight

20

into the parties’ business model and strategy”).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
2

II.

1

DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to seal information contained in (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss

2
3

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint; (2) exhibits attached to the motion; and (3) Defendants’

4

reply in support of the motion. See Dkt. Nos. 119, 127. Defendants indicate that the information

5

to be sealed concerns pricing information and other “confidential business information.” Dkt. No.

6

119 at 2. The Court has already agreed to seal some of this information as it appears in Plaintiff’s

7

second amended complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 115–116. Plaintiff also seeks to seal portions of its

8

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Defendants’ claim of confidential

9

information. Dkt. No. 124 at 1–3. Plaintiff takes no position on whether the Court should seal
any of the information contained in its opposition and identified by Defendant as confidential. Id.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

at 2–3 (“Ojmar files this administrative motion for the sole purpose of affording Security People

12

the opportunity to defend its confidentially designations as provided by Civil Local Rule 79-

13

5(e).”).
The Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to the documents at issue, as those

14
15

documents bear more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety,

16

809 F.3d at 1101. The information identified as sealable by Defendants in the motion to dismiss

17

and supporting exhibits, as well as in Defendants’ reply in support of the motion, satisfies the

18

compelling reasons standard because it is confidential business information. See In re Qualcomm

19

Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2.
In contrast, Plaintiff’s sealing request does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard

20
21

because it is not narrowly tailored. Plaintiff seeks to seal entire business agreements that are

22

substantially similar to those agreements that Defendants seek to seal. Compare Dkt. No. 119-1

23

(“Woods Decl.”) Exs. B–D, with Dkt. No. 124-1 (“Callaway Decl.”) Exs. A–C. Defendants,

24

however, sought only to seal portions of those agreements providing specific pricing information.

25

See id. Plaintiff does not explain why the Court should seal these documents in their entirety, and

26

Defendants likewise do not explain this discrepancy in their declaration of support for Plaintiff’s

27

request to seal. See Dkt. No. 126.

28

////
3

1

The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motions to seal, and

2

DENIES in part Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. The following summary table sets forth

3

the Court’s specific rulings as they relate to each document to be sealed:

4
Motion
119

Document
Mot. to Dismiss

Ruling
GRANTED

Portions Sealable
Highlighted portions

6

119

Woods Decl., Ex. A

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

7

119

Woods Decl., Ex. B

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

8

119

Woods Decl., Ex. C

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

9

119

Woods Decl., Ex. D

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

10

119

Woods Decl., Ex. E

GRANTED

Entire Document

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

119

Woods Decl., Ex. F

GRANTED

Entire Document

12

119

Woods Decl., Ex. G

GRANTED

Entire Document

13

124

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

14

124

Opp. to Mot. to
Dismiss
Callaway Decl.

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

15

124

Callaway Decl., Ex. A

DENIED

Entire Document

Confidential Business
Information
Not narrowly tailored

16

124

Callaway Decl., Ex. B

DENIED

Entire Document

Not narrowly tailored

17

124

Callaway Decl., Ex. C

DENIED

Entire Document

Not narrowly tailored

18

127

Reply in support of
Mot. to Dismiss

GRANTED

Highlighted portions

Confidential Business
Information

19

Reason
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information
Confidential Business
Information

20

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), those documents filed under seal as to which the

21

administrative motions are granted in full will remain under seal and the public will have access

22

only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/29/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
4