Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 248

ORDER GRANTING 244 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/7/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.

10
11

Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF

GOOGLE, LLC,

[Re: ECF 244]

Defendant.

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal an Exhibit attached

14
15

to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement. ECF 244 (“Mot.”). The sealing

16

motion is unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to

17

seal Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert F. Lopez at ECF 246-2.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Historically, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records.

20

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

21

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

22

judicial records bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling

23

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

24

public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files

25

generally exist when such “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such

26

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,

27

or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598

28

(1978)). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

1

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

2

court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a

3

‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

4

Chrslyer Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

5
6

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

7

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

8

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

9

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

12

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

13

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

14

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

15

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ sealing motion and the declaration of Robert F. Lopez

16
17

in support thereof. See ECF 244, 244-1. Because the sealing motion relates to materials filed with

18

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, which is more than

19

tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling

20

reasons standard. Philliben v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV-05615-JST, 2016 WL 9185000, at *2

21

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016); Kiersey v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-CV-01200-JST, 2013 WL 5609318, at *2

22

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (“[A] motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of

23

the settlement of the case may be effectively dispositive.”); See also Johnson v. Quantum

24

Learning Network, Inc., No. 15-CV-05013-LHK, 2016 WL 4472993, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,

25

2016).

26

Plaintiffs move to seal Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert F. Lopez in support of

27

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. See ECF 246-2 (“Exhibit B”).

28

Exhibit B contains confidential settlement information regarding the conditions triggering
2

1

Defendant’s right to terminate and withdraw from the Settlement Agreement. See generally Mot.

2

Plaintiffs are not clear as to which standard applies to their administrative motion, arguing that

3

“Courts frequently find good cause to seal confidential settlement information.” Id. (citing Phillips

4

v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis added). However, Plaintiffs also cite to

5

relevant authority from this District where the court found compelling reasons to seal similar

6

confidential information in a settlement agreement to discourage manipulation of the settlement.

7

See Mot. at 1 (citing Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 14-CV-01160-JST, 2016

8

WL 3879193, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016)).
In Thomas, Judge Tigar granted the parties’ motion to file under seal the conditions under

9

which the defendant may terminate the settlement, finding that compelling reasons existed to keep

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the information confidential “in order to prevent third parties from utilizing it for the improper

12

purpose of obstructing the settlement and obtaining higher payouts.” 2016 WL 3879193, at *7

13

(N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) (citing In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 948 (9th

14

Cir. 2015)). This Court has reviewed Exhibit B to the Lopez Declaration in this case, and agrees

15

with the reasoning in Thomas that compelling reasons exist to seal this information. The Court

16

also finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b)

17
18

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF 244 is GRANTED. The

19

redacted version of Exhibit B filed into the public record by Plaintiffs in connection with their

20

motion for preliminary approval of settlement (ECF 246-2) is consistent with this order, so no

21

further documents need to be filed.

22
23
24
25

Dated: March 7, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3