Fiteq Inc v. Venture Corporation et al

Filing 203

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman granting 198 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FITEQ INC, Case No. 13-cv-01946-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 VENTURE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 198] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Consistent with the parties’ protective order entered in this action, see ECF 98, Plaintiff 14 moves to file under seal two exhibits filed with its motion for partial summary judgment, as well 15 as the portions of its motion referencing those two exhibits. ECF 198. Plaintiff states that these 16 documents have been designated highly confidential by Defendant Venture. Venture has filed a 17 declaration in support of the sealing request. See Khoo Decl., ECF 202-1. 18 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 19 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 20 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling 21 reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which 22 applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 23 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of a 24 motion for summary judgment, or portions of any documents filed in support or in opposition to 25 that motion, must meet the “compelling reasons” standard articulated in Phillips. 26 27 28 Here, Venture’s response in support of the motion to seal, along with the Khoo Declaration, provide the necessary compelling reasons to support sealing the documents. Exhibit 1 DD, which Plaintiff asks to seal in its entirety,1 is an agreement between Venture and a non-party 2 to the case, and includes confidential business information of Venture’s business partner. 3 Disclosing the document and the confidential information within it would “disrupt the business 4 relationship between Venture and its Partner.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3. Exhibit EE, which Plaintiff seeks 5 to seal in part, is a letter regarding a grant from the Singapore Economic Development Board 6 (“EDB”), a non-party to this suit and a government agency, received by Venture. The redactions 7 include EDB’s confidential grant terms, and could harm the business planning and strategic 8 decisions of that agency. Cf. Khoo Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to redact a single limited 9 portion of the partial motion for summary judgment which references sealed portions of these 10 documents. See Bishop Decl. at 1. Plaintiff’s sealing request meets the compelling reasons standard articulated in Phillips, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 and its requests are narrowly tailored consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). For the 13 foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: February 10, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Exhibit DD, as produced to Plaintiff, already includes certain redactions. See Bishop Decl., ECF 198-1 at 1 n.1. As such, Plaintiff has filed a redacted document as Exhibit DD, and seeks to seal the entirety of that redacted agreement. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?