Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al

Filing 138

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 112 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BIG BABOON, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SAP AMERICA, INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 112

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-02082-HSG

12
Pending before the Court is Defendant SAP America’s administrative motion to file under

13
14

seal documents related to its motion to compel discovery in aid of judgment. Dkt. No. 112. The

15

Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons described below.

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, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

19

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the

20

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

21

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

28

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

1

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

2

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

3

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records

4

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

5

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

6
7

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

8

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

9

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5
supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

14
15

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

16

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80

17

(quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm

18

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

19

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of

20

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman

21

Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

22
23
24
25

II.

DISCUSSION
Because Defendant’s motion to compel discovery is not a dispositive motion, the Court

applies the lower good cause standard.
The current sealing request seeks to seal information that contains confidential and

26

sensitive financial information relating to the operations and liabilities of Plaintiff, including

27

account numbers, balance sheets, and copies of checks. See Dkt. No. 112-4 at 8; Dkt. No. 112-5.

28

These requests are narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material (the confidential and sensitive
2

1

financial information), as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and the case was terminated

2
3

on April 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 86; Dkt. No. 87. Further, the motion to compel discovery in aid of

4

judgment was granted in part and denied in part on June 5, 2020 without reference to the

5

information sought to be sealed. Dkt. No. 120. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the

6

public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in

7

disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the case and the motion have been resolved.

8

See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D.

9

Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further
diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential financial

12

information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the

13

Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty.

14

of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019)

15

(finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulged sensitive information no

16

longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego,

17

No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s

18

disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the

19

exhibit).

20

III.

21

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Pursuant to

22

Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is

23

granted will remain under seal.

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/8/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
3