Clear-View Technologies, Inc., v. Rasnick et al

Filing 186

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying without prejudice 177 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,,

Case No. 13-cv-02744-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

JOHN H. RASNICK, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 177]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff moves to seal exhibit C to the Declaration of Doug Tilley, submitted with its reply
brief in support of its motion to exclude evidence. See ECF 177.
Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

16

including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178. Two standards govern motions to seal

17

documents, a “compelling reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good

18

cause” standard, which applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex

19

rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks

20

to seal a document submitted along with a motion to exclude evidence must meet the “compelling

21

reasons” standard.

22

Plaintiff submits a declaration in support of its sealing request, and declares that the

23

information contained in exhibit C contains “technical, financial, strategic, and other sensitive

24

information that is confidential and proprietary to CVT.” Tilley Decl., ECF 177-1 at ¶ 2. The

25

Court has reviewed the exhibit, and finds that while it may contain some proprietary or

26

confidential information, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing as to why this exhibit should

27

be sealed in its entirety. A party seeking to seal a document under Civil Local Rule 79-5 must

28

make a request that is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

1

5(b). Plaintiff’s bare recitation that the information in exhibit C, which is over sixty pages long,

2

contains some “technical, financial, strategic, and other sensitive information” is not sufficient to

3

seal the exhibit in its entirety. For example, the exhibit includes emails that do not seem to contain

4

confidential information, and some PowerPoint slides that include only general information about

5

the company and product at issue in this suit.

6

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal the exhibit in its entirety, without

7

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a more narrowly tailored motion to seal portions of the exhibit, with

8

particularized reasons for filing the portions of the document under seal consistent with Civil

9

Local Rule 79.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2