Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.

Filing 135

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Beth L. Freeman granting in part and denying in part 111 ; granting in part and denying in part 124 ; granting in part and denying in part 129 . (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

JUSTIN DARISSE,
Plaintiff,

12

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

13
14

Case No. 5:14-cv-01363-BLF

[Re: ECF 111, 124, 129]

NEST LABS, INC.,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal, one from Plaintiff Justin Darisse

18

and two from Defendant Nest Labs, Inc. See Mots., ECF 111, 124, 129. All three sealing motions

19

relate to the briefing on Darisse’s motion for class certification. See id. For the reasons stated

20

below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

21

I.

22

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

23

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of

24

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

25

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

26

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

27

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

28

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
1

1

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

2

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

3

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

5

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

6

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed.

7

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

8

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

9

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

10

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

12

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

13

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

14

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

15

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

16

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

17

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

18

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

19

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

20

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

21

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

22

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

23

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

24

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
2

1

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

2

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

3

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

4

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

5

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

6

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

7

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

8

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

9

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

10

II.

Because the parties’ class certification briefing is more than tangentially related to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

12

merits of this case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. With that standard in mind,

13

the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

14
15
16

ECF
No.
111-11

17
18
19
20

111-12

21
22
23

111-13

Document to
be Sealed
Nest’s
opposition to
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Wilson Decl.
in support of
Nest’s
opposition
Exhibits 205206 to Wilson
Decl.

Result

Reasoning

Designations highlighted
in yellow at
24:14-17, 20-22
SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
UNSEALED.

UNSEALED.

Sealed designations contain confidential
business information. Unsealed
designations contain information
designated as confidential by Darisse,
but Darisse has not filed a declaration in
support as required by Civ. L.R. 795(e)(1).
Declaration in support of sealing does
not request sealing of Wilson
declaration.
Ex. 205 contains information designated
as confidential by Darisse, but Darisse
has not filed a declaration in support as
required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

24

Ex. 206 does not contain Darisse’s
confidential information, as stated in
Nest’s declaration in support of its
motion to seal. Compare Wilson Decl. ¶
3, ECF 111-12, with Ex. 206, ECF 11113.

25
26
27
28
3

1

111-14

2

Blasnik Decl.
in support of
Nest’s
opposition

3
4
5

Designations highlighted
in orange at

Only sealed portions contain confidential
business information.

5:5, 13-18, 20, 23-24, 2628;
6:1;
7:1-7, 12-13

7

SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted
in yellow on pages

8

3, 23, 24, A1-3

6

111-15

David Decl.

9
10

124-4

Darisse’s
Reply

SEALED.
Designations highlighted
in turquoise at

Sealed designations contain confidential
business information.

Only sealed portions contain confidential
business information.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
2:3-8,
3:4, 24-25,
13:14-15

12
13

Darisse’s
Reply Decl.

SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designation highlighted in Sealed portion contains Darisse’s
turquoise at
identifying personal information.

Persinger
Decl.

Exhibit D, 45:6-9
SEALED.
Exhibit A, 64:13-20,
80:16-24;

14
15

124-6

16
17
18

124-8

19

Exhibits B, C, F, and L

20

SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

21
22
23
24

124-10

Weir Decl.

UNSEALED.

25
26
27
28
4

Only sealed portions contain confidential
business information. Unsealed
designations contain generic business
and marketing principles, nonconfidential business information, or
information disclosed by Nest on its
website and public materials. Exhibit G
was not filed with the Court in its
redacted or unredacted form and so the
request to seal it is DENIED.
Unsealed designation contains
information designated as confidential by
Nest, and Nest indicates that sealing is
unnecessary. See Reiten Decl. at 1 n.1,
ECF 128.

1

129-2

2
3
4
5

129-3

6
7
8
9

129-4

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

129-5

14
15
16
17

129-6

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

129-7

Ex. 35 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Ex. 37 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Ex. 38 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Ex. 101 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Ex. 102 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification
Ex. 103 to
Fisher Decl. in
support of
Darisse’s
motion for
class
certification

Personal contact
information SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

UNSEALED.

Unsealed designations are a discussion of
a promotional blog post and what
message to use in it. The blog post has
been publicly published, including the
proposed messages. The unsealed
designations are no longer confidential
business information.
Does not contain confidential business
information.

UNSEALED.

Does not contain confidential business
information.

Designations outlined in
red at

Only sealed portions contain confidential
business information.

147:1-15 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

UNSEALED.

Does not contain confidential business
information.

Designations outlined in
red SEALED.

Sealed portions contain confidential
business information.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2016
_________________________________
BETH L. FREEMAN
United States District Judge

27
28
5