Gearsource Holdings, LLC v. Google LLC

Filing 191

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTINGADMINISTRATIVE ( 164 , 166 ) MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GEARSOURCE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

GOOGLE LLC,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 164, 166

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-03812-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal

13
14

documents related to its motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert. Dkt. No. 164. Also

15

pending is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal documents related to its opposition

16

to Defendant’s motion in limine. Dkt. No. 166. The Court GRANTS both motions for the

17

reasons described below.

18
19

I.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

10

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

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
25
26
27
28

II.

DISCUSSION
Because Defendant’s motion in limine is not a dispositive motion, the Court applies the

lower good cause standard.
The current sealing requests seek to seal information that contain confidential business and
financial information relating to the operations of Defendant. See Dkt. No. 164 at 1-2; Dkt. No.
2

1

166-3 at 2; Dkt. No. 166-5 at 1-2. The Court previously granted some of the sealing requests

2

seeking to seal materially identical information that was attached to Defendant’s motion for

3

summary judgment and thus subject to the more stringent “compelling reason” standard. See Dkt.

4

No. 174. The Court previously found that Defendant had narrowly tailored its proposed

5

redactions to protect only the information that is sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b); Dkt. No. 174.

6

In these motions as well, Defendant and Plaintiff propose limited redactions of only the

7

information that the Court has previously found to be sealable.
Further, the parties’ filed a joint motion for dismissal on September 30, 2020, and the case

8
9

was subsequently terminated without a ruling on the motion in limine. Dkt. No. 186; Dkt. No.
189. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal

12

given that the Court will not rule on Defendant’s motion in limine. See In re iPhone Application

13

Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The

14

public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that

15

the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”).

16

Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business and financial information

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer

21

related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-

22

CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of

23

personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit).

24

III.

CONCLUSION

25

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s administrative motions to file under seal.

26

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

27

//

28

//
3

1

motions are granted will remain under seal.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/24/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

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
4