CES Group, LLC v. Energy Labs, Inc et al
Filing
361
ORDER REGARDING 274 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF NORTEK'S TRIAL BRIEF. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/18/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2016)
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 274]
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
NORTEK’S TRIAL BRIEF
12
Before the Court is Noretk’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its trial
13
14
15
16
brief. ECF 274. For the reasons stated below, the motions is GRANTED.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
17
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
18
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
19
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
20
“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
21
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
22
1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
23
upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
24
In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
25
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in
26
part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-
27
5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
28
documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
1
2
sealable.” Id.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Nortek’s sealing motion and respective declarations in support
3
4
thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of
5
most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The
6
Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the tables below:
7
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Nortek confidential
information marked by
redactions at 7:8; 7:13; 7:2225; 8:3; 8:5-6; 8:9-10; 8:22-23;
9:16-17; 9:19
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
15
Defendants’ information
designated as “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
marked by redactions at
8:16-17; 8: 26-28; 9:1-3, 9:1012
16
III.
12
13
14
Description of Documents
Court’s Order
Highly confidential financial
GRANTED
information regarding
proprietary intellectual
property licenses between
Nortek or Nortek affiliates and
third parties.
Contains confidential
GRANTED
information regarding
Defendants’ financial and sales
information
ORDER
17
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 274 is GRANTED.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
Dated: August 18, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?