Tryfonas v. Splunk Inc

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 19 MOTION TO SEAL Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOS TRYFONAS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 19

SPLUNK, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-01420-HSG

12
Pending before the Court is Defendant Splunk Inc.’s motion to seal. See Dkt. No. 19. For

13
14
15

the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD

16

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives

17

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

18

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

19

(quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A]

20

strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178

21

(quotation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial

22

record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

23

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

24

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant

25

public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that

2

the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

3

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

4

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

6

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

7

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5

8

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a

9

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are

10

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

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

12

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

13

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

14

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”

15

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

16

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). The “good cause” standard requires

17

a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

18

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.

19

2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

20

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

21

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
Because the motion to dismiss and the employment agreements at issue in the motion are

22
23

more than tangentially related to the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the

24

“compelling reasons” standard in evaluating the motion to seal.

25

II.

ANALYSIS

26

Defendant seeks to redact Exhibits 1–4 to the Declaration of Hannah A. Withers, filed in

27

support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, because they contain proprietary

28

information regarding the merger between Caspida, Inc. and Defendant, as well as Defendant’s
2

1

related business strategy. See Dkt. No. 19-6 (Declaration); see also Dkt. Nos. 20 (motion), 21

2

(request for judicial notice). Upon review of the Declaration of Weilyn Wood, Dkt. No. 19-1, the

3

Court finds that the public disclosure of such information would result in harm to Defendant’s

4

business. Compelling reasons therefore exist to keep this information under seal.

5

III.

CONCLUSION

6

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal. Exhibits 1–4 to the

7

declaration of Hannah A. Withers, filed in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, shall remain

8

sealed. Dkt. Nos. 19-2–19-5.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/24/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3