Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Software Tech

Filing 113

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting 111 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (rmwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

14
15

SOFTWARE TECH, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 111

Defendants.
16
17

Before the court is Adobe’s administrative motion to seal an exhibit in support of its

18

motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 111. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right

19

to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

20

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.

21

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a

22

sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz

23

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal

24

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

25

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

26

favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

27

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous
1

28
5:14-cv-02140-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
RS

1

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

2

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents

3

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should

4

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that

5

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

6

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

7

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

8

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

9

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach

13

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table

14

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unredacted version

15

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

16

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

17

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

18

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

19

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

20

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.
Motion to
Document to be Sealed
Ruling
Reason/Explanation
Seal
111
Adobe Sales and Profit
GRANTED Narrowly tailored to confidential
Spreadsheet (111-3)
business information

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2016

25

______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

26
27

2

28
5:14-cv-02140-RMW
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
RS