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

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 58 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2014)

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.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS
(1) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED ANSWER, AND
(2) DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 11, 2014 Administrative Motion to file under seal

15

portions of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer

16

(“Motion”), (ECF 58), and portions of its supporting papers, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

17

Plaintiff seeks to seal: (1) portions of its Opposition (ECF 58-4), as well as (2) portions of the

18

Declaration of Renee B. Bea in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition (Opp. Decl., ECF 58-6), filed

19

concurrently therewith, that reference contractual agreements designated by stipulation between

20

the parties as confidential or proprietary. (Id.) Plaintiff submits a declaration in support of the

21

requested sealing (“Bea Decl.”). (ECF 58-1) Because Plaintiff’s declaration offers a compelling

22

reason to seal portions of the Opposition and portions of the Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s

23

Opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

An Opposition to an Amended Answer is neither a discovery document nor a dispositive

5

motion, but the Court believes its status more closely resembles that of a dispositive motion. Thus,

6

a party seeking to seal portions of such an Opposition, and portions of any supporting documents,

7

must show a compelling interest that outweighs the public’s general right to inspect such

8

documents.
In this case, the declaration filed with Plaintiff’s Motion meets the compelling interest

10

standard. Plaintiff cites facts to the Court regarding the reasons the agreements in question are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

confidential above and beyond the mere fact that the parties themselves have designated the

12

documents as “Confidential” or “Proprietary.” The declaration states that the disclosure of such

13

agreements “would create a risk of economic or other harm . . . by enabling third parties to

14

capitalize on the confidential and/or proprietary information contained therein.” (Bea Decl., ECF

15

58-1 ¶ 3) It further notes that Plaintiff “carefully guards its confidential and proprietary

16

information . . . and restricts access to only those CVT personnel who have a need to know such

17

information and who agree to maintain the secrecy of the same.” (Id.) The Court believes that

18

these facts, coupled with the agreement between the parties to designate such information as

19

confidential and proprietary, meets the “compelling interest” standard necessary to outweigh the

20

public’s right of access. See Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206, 1213.

21

Plaintiff has filed with the Court a public, redacted version of both the proposed

22

Opposition to the Amended Answer, (ECF 58-3), and the Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s

23

Opposition, (ECF 58-5), consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C), and seeks only to seal the

24

information related to the documents containing confidential and proprietary information. As such,

25

their request is appropriately narrowly tailored.

26

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal,

27

and permits Plaintiff to file under seal the portions so designated of both its Opposition to

28

Defendants’ Motion to File an Amended Answer, and Declaration of Renee B. Bea in Support of
2

1

Plaintiff’s Opposition.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
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
3