Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.

Filing 159

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING ( 148 , 156 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EXELTIS USA INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 148, 156

10

FIRST DATABANK, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG

12
Currently before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal by Plaintiff

13
14

Exeltis USA Inc. The administrative motions were filed in connection with Exeltis’s motion for

15

leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 149, which the parties have since stipulated to

16

allowing, Dkt. No. 158. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motions to file under

17

seal.1

18

I.

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

19
20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To

25

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a

26

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

27
28

1

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

1

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

2

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

3

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

4

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

19

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often

20

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal

21

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

22

Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific

23

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

II.

DISCUSSION
Exeltis moved to file under temporary seal portions of its motion, reply, declaration, and
2

1

the proposed amended complaint that had been designated as confidential under the protective

2

order. See Dkt. Nos. 148, 156. First Databank submitted a declaration in support of sealing these

3

materials permanently, asserting that publication would “hamper [its] ability to exercise its

4

independent editorial judgment” and “harm [its] competitive position.” See Dkt. No. 151.
The Court applies the good cause standard because the materials are attached to a

5
6

nondispositive motion. However, these broad and unsubstantiated allegations of harm are

7

insufficient to meet even the good cause standard. The information sought to be sealed refers to

8

First Databank’s internal and third-party communications, but it does not discuss any trade secrets,

9

commercially sensitive information, or other protected personal information. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES the motions to file under seal. Cf. Dkt. No. 145 (order by Magistrate Judge Kim

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

denying motions to seal).

12

III.

CONCLUSION

13

Exeltis’s motions to file under seal are DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 148, 156. Exeltis shall file

14

unredacted versions of the amended complaint and the documents that were sought to be sealed

15

within three days of this order.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 5/28/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3