CES Group, LLC v. Energy Labs, Inc et al

Filing 215

ORDER GRANTING 164 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 7. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/2/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

[Re: ECF 164]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL STIPULATION BY THE
PARTIES REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE JOINT REPORT NO. 7

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal portions of the

13
14

Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 7. ECF 164. The redacted portions of

15

the Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 7 relate to the financial information

16

of Defendant which has been designated by Defendant as “Confidential” under the Protective

17

Order entered in this matter. Id. at 2.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

20

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

21

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

22

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

23

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

24

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

25

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

26

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

27

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

28

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

1

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

2

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

3

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

4

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
16

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to seal portions of the Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint

17

Report No. 7 that relate to the financial information of Defendant. ECF 191 at 1. This

18

information has been designated confidential by Defendant. Id. As the designating party,

19

Defendant filed a declaration indicating that this material discloses sensitive financial information

20

held as a trade secret which could cause competitive injury if made public. Brown Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7,

21

ECF 167. The Court finds the sealing request to be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court

22

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

27
28
2