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

Filing 376

ORDER GRANTING 358 , 359 SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/2/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2016)

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.

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTIONS

9
10

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

[Re: ECF 358, 359]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court are parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of the Trial

13

Transcripts consisting of testimony given while the courtroom was sealed to the public. ECF 358,

14

359. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED.

15
16

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

sealable.” Id.

2
3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support

5

thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of

6

the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s

7

rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:

8

A.
ECF 358
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Trial Transcript Vol. 4 (July
27, 2016)
788:1-23, 25 (beginning after
“with”); 789:1-3
Trial Transcript Vol. 6 (August
1, 2016)
1318:12-19; 1319:1-13
(beginning after “an attorney”
on 1319:1), 17-22; 1320:6-14;
1399:13-17; 1399:21-1400:6

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

B.
ECF 359
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Trial Transcript Vol. 3 (July
26, 2016)
348:9-10 (beginning after
“about” and ending with
“Labs.”); 348:18-20
(beginning after “reasons”);
348:22-351:7; 368:6-8
(beginning after “2015”);
368:18-372:24
Trial Transcript Vol. 4 (July
27, 2016)
600:3-19

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Testimony relating to
confidential business
information of Defendant.

GRANTED.

Testimony relating to
confidential business
information of Defendant.

GRANTED.

Description of Documents

Court’s Order

Testimony relating to
confidential business
information of Plaintiff.

GRANTED.

Testimony relating to
confidential business
information of Plaintiff.

GRANTED.

25
26
27
28
2

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 358, 359 are GRANTED.

2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: September 2, 2016
6
7

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3