Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. Corelogic, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 109 ; denying 113 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2015)

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
11

BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

CORELOGIC, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 109, 113)

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal several documents. “Historically,
courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a

19
20

‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial

21

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

22

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

23

disclosure. 3

24
25
26

1

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)).
2

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3

Id. at 1178-79.

27
28

1
Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain

1
2

mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

3

their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

4

to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

5
6
7
8
9

“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). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order

11

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good

12

cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to

13
14

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11

15
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

16
17

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to

18

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document

19

4

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

20

5

See id. at 1180.

21

6

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

22

7

Id.

23

8

24

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).
9

25

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

10

26

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

11

27
28

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

2

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

3

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13

6

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

7
8
9

Motion
to Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

109

Boundary Solutions’
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Leave to File
Its Amended Counterclaim

Designations highlighted in
black at Docket No. 109-3
SEALED EXCEPT page 2,
lines 2, 14 and 28 UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information. 14

109

Exhibit 1 to the Wecker
Declaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

109

Exhibit 4 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

109

Exhibit 5 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109

Exhibit 6 to the Wecker
Declaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

12

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) 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,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B), 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.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).
13

26

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

14

27
28

In the future, the parties shall comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D): “[t]he unredacted version
must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been
omitted from the redacted version.”
3
Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

109

Exhibit 7 to the Wecker
Declaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

109

Exhibit 8 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

Publicly filed at
Docket No. 110-4.

109

Exhibit 9 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109

Exhibit 10 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

109

Exhibit 11 to the Wecker
Declaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailored
to confidential
business information.

109

1

Declaration of Dennis
Klein

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109

Exhibit 1 to the Klein
Declaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109

Exhibit 4 to the Klein
Declaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

109

Exhibit 5 to the Klein
Declaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

113

CoreLogic’s Reply in
Support of Motion for
Leave to Amend Its
Answer to Plaintiff
Boundary Solutions’
Second Amended
Complaint

UNSEALED.

No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case Nos. 5:14-cv-00761-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL