Mitac Digital Corporation v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Inc. et al

Filing 67

Order by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denying without prejudice 64 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MITAC DIGITAL CORPORATION,

Case No. 13-cv-03704-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY INC.,
et al.,

[Re: ECF 64]

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12
13

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal exhibits A and B to the declaration of Pierre Parent, filed

14

in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF 64-4.

15

Defendants have not opposed the request.

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal a document

22

submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must meet the “compelling reasons”

23

standard.

24

Plaintiff declares that these two documents were produced “Attorney’s Eyes Only”

25

pursuant to a protective order. Both exhibits are confidential acquisition documents related to

26

Plaintiff’s purchase of a third party company; this third party has not given Plaintiff consent to

27

publically produce the documents. Rice Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Rice, declares that the

28

public filing of these two documents “could subject my client to litigation by the third party” for

1
2

violations of the parties’ confidentiality agreement. See Rice Decl. ¶ 3.
Plaintiff’s declaration, standing alone, is insufficient to seal these two exhibits. In
Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit considered this very issue, and held that “[t]he mere fact that the

4

production of records may . . . expose [a party] to further litigation will not, without more, compel

5

the court to seal its records.” Kamakana at 1179 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

6

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)) (emphasis added). The presumption of public access to

7

documents, particularly as here when those documents are filed in opposition to a dispositive

8

motion, cannot be outweighed merely because the party producing those documents could face

9

suit due to a confidentiality agreement with a third party. See Foltz at 1135. Plaintiff’s declaration

10

has not provided the “something more” required by this Circuit in Kamakana – for example, that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the public disclosure of the documents would cause Plaintiff some particularized economic harm –

12

and the Court therefore DENIES the motion to seal. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff

13

filing a supplemental declaration outlining compelling reasons that would suffice to seal these two

14

exhibits, as required by Kamakana and Phillips.

15
16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2