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

Filing 60

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman denying without prejudice 53 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014)

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.

[Re: Dkt. No. 53]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

12
13

Before the Court is Defendants’ May 28, 2014 administrative motion to file under seal

14

their Amended Answer, Statement of Additional Defenses and Counterclaims. (ECF 53)

15

Defendants seek to seal a document that references contractual agreements designated by

16

stipulation between the parties as confidential or proprietary (Id.) Defendants submit a single

17

declaration in support of the requested sealing. (“Johanson Decl.,” ECF 53-1) Because

18

Defendant’s declaration does not articulate a compelling reason to seal the document, the Court

19

DENIES the administrative motion without prejudice, and grants Defendant leave to amend to

20

supplement the declaration with necessary facts.

21

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

22

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

23

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling

24

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

25

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

26

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). This standard requires the party meet a

27

lower burden, recognizing a lesser “cognizable public interest in . . . documents produced between

28

private litigants.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2009).

1

An Amended Answer is neither a discovery document nor a dispositive motion, but the

2

Court believes its status more closely resembles that of a dispositive motion. Thus, a party seeking

3

to seal an Amended Answer must show a compelling interest that outweighs the public’s general

4

right to inspect such documents.

5

In this case, the sole declaration filed with Defendants’ administrative motion meets
neither the good cause nor compelling interest standard, as Defendants cite no facts to the Court

7

regarding the reasons the agreements in question are confidential. The Johanson Declaration,

8

which includes only three paragraphs, stated only that “the proposed Amended Answer . . . refers

9

to certain contractual agreements by the parties, which have been designated as ‘Confidential’ or

10

‘Proprietary’ pursuant to a Stipulation.” (Johanson Decl., ECF 53-1 ¶ 3) The mere fact the parties

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

believe the documents to be confidential or proprietary does not establish for the Court why such

12

information should be sealed, overriding the public’s general right to inspect documents. Though

13

the Court recognizes that the Defendants have filed a public, redacted version of the proposed

14

Amended Answer, and have narrowly tailored their request for sealing, they still must provide the

15

Court some reason for the confidentiality of the documents, beyond just the agreement of the

16

parties. Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206, 1213.

17

The Court has been provided a declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel, (Bea Decl., ECF 58-1),

18

which articulates specific reasons why the agreements should be kept confidential. The Court

19

believes that the reasons proffered in the Bea Declaration are sufficient to meet the “compelling

20

interest” standard. The Court believes that there are facts that, while not included in Defendants’

21

Johanson Declaration, would support the administrative motion to seal. If Defendants concur with

22

the rationale offered in Plaintiff’s Declaration, they should so advise the Court. Defendants may

23

also wish to file a supplemental declaration to state additional reasons by which the document

24

should be sealed as requested in the administrative motion. But without such information before

25

the Court, the Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants administrative motion to seal.

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2014
______________________________________
HON. BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

5
6
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
3