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

Filing 88

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 87 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014)

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.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT
UNDER SEAL

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its

14

Answer and Statement of Additional Defenses in Response to Defendants’ Counterclaims

15

(“Answer to Counterclaims”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Plaintiff submits a declaration

16

in support of the requested sealing, the Bea Declaration, which offers compelling reasons to grant

17

the requested sealing. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

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). The “compelling reasons” standard

24

governs pleadings filed with the Court, and thus applies here. See id.

25

The Bea Declaration states that Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaims references confidential

26

contractual agreements, the public disclosure of which could cause economic harm to Plaintiff by

27

allowing third parties to “capitalize on the confidential and/or proprietary information contained

28

therein.” Bea Decl., ECF 87-1 ¶ 4. This Court has previously granted Plaintiff’s administrative

1

motions to file documents under seal when those documents have referenced such confidential

2

contractual agreements. See, e.g., ECF 67. The Court finds that the showing in the Bea Declaration

3

is sufficient to meet the compelling reasons standard necessary to outweigh the public’s general

4

right of access to the information contained in Plaintiff’s Answer to Counterclaims. See, e.g.,

5

Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206, 1213.

6

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

7

Counterclaims, consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). The Court finds its request to be

8

appropriately narrowly tailored.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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