Farhang v. Indian institute of Technology Kharagpur et al

Filing 410

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denying without prejudice 406 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

M.A. MOBILE LTD, a limited liability
company charted in Dominica; and
MANDANA D. FARHANG,

16
17
18

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. C-08-02658-RMW

v.
[Re Docket No. 406]

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KHARAGPUR, an Indian Institute of
Technology incorporated under the “Institutes
of Technology Act, 1961”; PARTHA P.
CHAKRABARTI; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

19
Defendants.
20
21

To be sealable a document must be "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

22

entitled to protection under the law." L.R. 79-5(a). It is not appropriate to seal documents merely

23

because a party has marked them confidential under the protective order. Furthermore, "compelling

24

reasons" are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty.

25

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, the type of compelling reason

26

sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure exists when the court files might be used as

27

a vehicle for improper purposes such as to "gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate

28

libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. C-08-02658-RMW
SW

-1-

1

Defendants have not identified any trade secrets or otherwise sealable material in the

2

documents they propose to seal. The Lin Declaration fails to explain how defendants' "legitimate

3

interest" in its business negotiations establishes that the documents contain trade secrets or

4

otherwise sealable material. Dkt. No. 406-1. Therefore, the court DENIES the motion to seal.

5

In accordance with the local rules, defendants may e-file the documents, unsealed, within

6

four days or the court will consider the documents withdrawn. General Order 62. If, in good faith,

7

defendants believe they can establish compelling reasons to file the documents under seal consistent

8

with Kamakana, they may alternatively file a new declaration within four days establishing with

9

specificity what portions of the documents are sealable and why.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: July 19, 2013

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. C-08-02658-RMW
SW

-2-