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

Filing 78

ORDER re 75 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Ojmar US, LLC. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/7/2017. (mejlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OJMAR US, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG (MEJ) Plaintiff, 8 DISCOVERY ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 75 9 10 SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiff Ojmar US, LLC moves to redact portions of the parties’ joint letter brief and to 14 file Exhibit 3 to the letter brief under seal. See Mot., Dkt. No. 75. Plaintiff moves to seal this 15 information because it has been designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” and confidential by 16 Defendant Security People, Inc. Id.; see also Callaway Decl., Dkt. No. 75-1. 17 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Defendant filed a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s 18 Motion. See Hainline Decl., Dkt. No. 76. The information related to deposition testimony by 19 Defendant’s patent counsel, Mr. Freiburger. Defendant recognizes it has waived privilege as to its 20 conversations with Mr. Freiburger as part of its advice-of-counsel defense, but contends the 21 deposition testimony itself, and as described in the letter brief, “is nevertheless still highly 22 confidential.” Id. ¶ 5. Defendant contends that public disclosure of this confidential information 23 “would unfairly harm [Defendant’s] business and customers by disclosing contract terms that 24 should be kept confidential.” Id. The Court has reviewed the letter brief and cannot discern any 25 confidential business information, including contract terms, within the two redacted paragraphs. 26 The Court also has reviewed the deposition transcript attached as Exhibit 3 to the joint letter. 27 Possibly with the exception of page 313 at lines 9-19 and a portion of the exhibit it discusses 28 (Freiburger Ex. 49 at Freiburger2794), the Court cannot discern any trade secrets, contract terms, 1 or sensitive financial information being discussed in the document. 2 The Court accordingly finds there is no good cause1, based on Defendant’s declaration, to 3 seal the information. No later than June 12, 2017, Defendant may file a supplemental declaration 4 to support the request for sealing if it can demonstrate that the information sought to be sealed is 5 “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” and 6 narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). If no supplemental declaration is filed, the Court shall deny 7 the Motion to Seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: June 7, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The parties invoke the “compelling reason” standard in their declarations, but because the Motion pertains to a non-dispositive matter, the good cause standard applies. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Good cause” is the proper standard when parties wish to keep records attached to a non-dispositive motion under seal); Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (good cause standard applies to discovery letter briefs). The Court nevertheless notes that “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are not sufficient to justify sealing under the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 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?