Adema Technologies, Inc v. Wacker Chemical Corporation et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 8 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ADEMA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
WACKER CHEMIE AG and WACKER
CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05599-PSG
ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTION
(Re: Docket No. 8)

Before the court is Plaintiff Adema Technologies, Inc.’s administrative motion to file the
supply agreement it shared with Defendant Wacker Chemie AG (“Wacker”) under seal. After

18
reviewing Defendants’ supporting declaration, the court GRANTS Adema’s motion.
19
I. LEGAL STANDARDS

20
21

A.

Sealing Motions

22

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

23

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing

24

request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal

25

judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption

26
1

27

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).

28

2

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
1
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05599-PSG
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

1
2

with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure. 3
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

presumption of access. 4 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 5 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 6 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 7 “Broad allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 8

11
12
13
14

“Under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisprudence in Kamakana, a request to seal all or part of a
complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the ‘good cause’ standard.
While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be disposed of, it is the
root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed of.” 9 When “a plaintiff

15
16
17

invokes the Court’s authority by filing a complaint, the public has a right to know who is invoking
it, and towards what purpose, and in what manner.” 10 At least one court has held that exhibits

18
19
20

3

Id. at 1178-79.

21

4

See id. at 1180.

22

5

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

23

6

Id.

24

7

25

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
8

26

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

27

In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., Case No: 4:06-cv-06110-SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008).

28

10

Id.
2

Case No.: 5:13-cv-05599-PSG
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

1

attached to the complaint must also meet the compelling reasons standard. 11

2

Parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by

3

Civil L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

4

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

5

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek

6

sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a
declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material
is sealable.” 13

11
12

II. ANALYSIS
A.

13
14

The Supply Agreement
The Supply Agreement dated March, 13, 2007, is “a long-term supply agreement in which

Wacker agreed to supply polysilicon” to Plaintiff. 14 The contract claims in this case are based

15
16

upon the underlying agreement that is the subject of this motion. Thus, the agreement is subject to

17

the compelling reasons standard. Nonetheless, the supplemental declaration demonstrates why

18

sealing the agreement is warranted. “Wacker has entered into, and intends to enter into, other

19

agreements for the supply of polysilicon with other entities in the United States and around the

20

world. Both the structure and the terms of the Supply Agreement are considered highly

21
22

11

23

Baldwin v. United States, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1145 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010) (noting “the
underlying cause of action for overpaid federal taxes arises directly out of the information in the
exhibit” – tax records relevant to the allegedly overpaid taxes).

24

12

26

Civil L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1) requires the submitting party to attach a
“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table
format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed” and an “unredacted version of
the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
that have been omitted” from the redacted version.

27

13

Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

28

14

Docket No. 15 at ¶ 3.

25

3
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05599-PSG
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION