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)

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