Garrison v. Oracle Corporation

Filing 165

ORDER re 150 Sealing Motion. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/22/2016. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GREG GARRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 150

ORACLE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

17
18

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal filed by Plaintiffs Greg Garrison,

19

Deborah Van Vorst, and Sastry Hari (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). ECF No. 150. Plaintiffs seek to

20

seal a brief filed in opposition to Defendant Oracle Corporation’s (“Oracle”) motion to dismiss.

21

See ECF No. 110.

22

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

23

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

24

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

25

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in

26

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

27
28

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
1
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION

1

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,

2

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

3

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

4

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons

5

justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a

6

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

7

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435

8

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

court to seal its records.” Id.
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

12

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

13

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court

14

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or

15

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

16

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the

17

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The

19

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

20

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

21

Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

22

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d

23

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

24

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

25

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

26

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION

1

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

2

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

3

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

4

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

5

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

6

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

7

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that

8

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

9

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

10

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

12

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

13

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

14

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

15

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

16

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

17

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

18

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

19

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

20

Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive motions and are more than

21

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. See Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2014

22

WL 233827, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014). Accordingly, the Court applies the “compelling

23

reasons” standard to Plaintiffs’ request to seal a brief connected to Oracle’s motion to dismiss.

24

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION

1
2
3
4
5
6

Document
Motion Standard
to Seal
150
Compelling Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Reasons
Brief re Statute of
Limitations (as per
Court’s 12/17/15 Order
[Dkt. 144]) in Opposition
to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss

7
8
9
10

GRANTED as to the redactions proposed in
ECF No. 152:
 Page 6, lines 8-12, 16-21 (until the
word “implies”)
 Page 7, lines 15-18
DENIED with prejudice as to all other
proposed redactions. Oracle and non-party
Google Inc. do not seek to keep under seal any
other portion of Plaintiffs’ brief. ECF Nos.
151, 152.

For the motions denied with prejudice, the submitting party must file a document redacted

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Ruling

consistent with this Order within fourteen (14) days.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: February 22, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 14-CV-04592-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION