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