Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER Granting in Part, Denying in Part 73 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 8/20/2014. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
DELPHIX CORP.,

7

Case No. 13-cv-04613-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
ACTIFIO, INC.,

10

Defendant.

[Re: ECF 73]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

12
Before the Court is plaintiff Delphix Corp.’s administrative motion to file under seal

13
14

portions of its Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, portions of its proposed

15

Fourth Amended Complaint, and Exhibits F-I filed in support thereof.1 (Admin. Mot., ECF 73)

16

Specifically, Exhibits F, H, and I contain Plaintiff’s confidential information, and Plaintiff has

17

supplied a declaration in support of sealing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

18

(Kolibachuk Decl., ECF 73-1) Exhibit G contains defendant Actifio’s confidential information,

19

and Defendant has not supplied the supporting declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

20

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

21

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

22

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to public records and documents,

23

including judicial ones. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

24

2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to the merits of the case bears the burden

25

of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual

26
1

27
28

The exhibits sought to be sealed are both referenced in Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and
intended to be attached to Plaintiff’s proposed Fourth Amended Complaint and incorporated by
reference therein.

1

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”2

2

Id. This standard is invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously

3

filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

4

331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist

5

when such “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

6

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

7

trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
Furthermore, in this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must also follow Civil

8
9

L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

a document designated confidential by another party (the “designating party”), the burden of

12

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

13

II.

ANALYSIS

14

A.

15

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits F, H, and I to its Motion for Leave to File Fourth

Exhibits F, H, and I

16

Amended Complaint and proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. Exhibit F is an employment

17

agreement that “pertains to the terms of employment of employees at Delphix.” (Kolibachuk

18

Decl, ¶ 4) Exhibits H and I contain “highly sensitive information regarding Delphix’s product

19

architecture and development.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that disclosing any of this information

20

publicly “could cause harm to Delphix if the information were to become known to a competitor.”

21

(Admin. Mot. 1) The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated sufficiently compelling reasons for

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception for materials attached to non-dispositive motions,
applying the lower “good cause” standard for sealing such documents. Id. 1179-80. As explained
in Kamakana, the public has less need to access materials attached to non-dispositive motions
because they are often “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”
Id. (quoting Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). The same
cannot be said for documents—such as pleadings—that are “at the heart of the interest in ensuring
the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.’” Id. at 1179
(quoting Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.
1986)); see also In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C 06-06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067,
at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (applying “compelling reasons” standard in evaluating request to
seal complaint).
2

1

sealing, and Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits F, H, and I.

2

B.

3

Plaintiff’s administrative motion indicates that Exhibit G was designated confidential or

Exhibit G

4

highly confidential by Defendant, and that Plaintiff served on Defendant a declaration identifying

5

the documents and portions of Plaintiff’s motion that contain Defendant’s confidential

6

information. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Defendant was required to file a declaration in

7

support of sealing within 4 days of the filing of the administrative motion to file under seal. Civ.

8

L.R. 79-5(e). As Defendant has not filed the required supporting declaration, Plaintiff’s sealing

9

request is DENIED as to Exhibit G and the portions of Plaintiff’s motion and proposed pleading

10

corresponding thereto.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

C.

12

Plaintiff has proposed redactions to portions of its Motion for Leave to File Fourth

Proposed Redactions

13

Amended Complaint and proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. It is not clear whether these

14

redactions correspond to the exhibits sought to be filed under seal and, if so, which redactions

15

correspond to which exhibits. Moreover, these redactions are not narrowly tailored, as required by

16

the local rules. For example, Plaintiff proposes to redact portions of its brief describing conduct

17

related to Defendant’s alleged misappropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secret. (See Pl.’s Mot. 2:26-

18

3:12) Although this section refers to Exhibits H and I, which this Court has determined to be

19

sealable, the description of Defendant’s conduct does not appear to disclose any specific details

20

about Plaintiff’s highly sensitive product and development information. Additionally, to the

21

extent certain portions were redacted because they contained information designated confidential

22

by Defendant, those portions should be unsealed because Defendant has not articulated compelling

23

reasons in support of sealing. As such, Plaintiff’s request to seal portions of its motion and

24

proposed pleading is DENIED without prejudice.

25

III.

26
27
28

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
1. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits F, H, and I. Those exhibits shall remain
3

1
2

under seal.
2. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as to Exhibit G. Plaintiff shall file the exhibit into the

3

public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the date of this

4

order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

5

3. Within ten (10) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall propose narrowly tailored

6

redactions to portions of its Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint and

7

proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s filing shall include a proposed order

8

that lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.

9

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4