Garrison v. Oracle Corporation

Filing 43

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part 36 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13

GREG GARRISON,

14
Plaintiff,
15
16

v.
ORACLE CORPORATION,

17

Defendant.

18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04592-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 36)

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal three documents. “Historically, courts

20

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

21

judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

23
24
25
26
27

1

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
2

28

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-4592-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

1
2

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3

3

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain

4

mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

5

their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

6

to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

7
8
9

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive motions, the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific

11

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm,

12

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order

13
14

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to

15
16
17

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed.11

18
3

Id. at 1178-79.

4

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

5

See id. at 1180.

6

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

7

Id.

19
20
21
22
23
8

24

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

25

9

26

10

27

11

28

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case No.: 5:14-cv-4592-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

1
2

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to

3

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document

4

is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

5
6

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

7
8
9

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”13
With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Motion

12

Docket No.
36-3

13
14

Docket No.
36-4

15
16
17

Docket No.
36-6

Document to be
Sealed
Oracle’s Motion
for a Protective
Order
Declaration of
Sarah M. Ray in
Support of
Oracle’s Motion
for a Protective
Order
Exhibit 5 to the
Ray Declaration

18

Result
SEALED.
Portions redacted in
Docket No. 40-3
SEALED; remainder
unsealed.
Portions redacted in
Docket No. 40-1
SEALED; remainder
unsealed.

Reason/Explanation
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information and supported
by a declaration.
Only sealed portions narrowly tailored
to confidential business information
and supported by a declaration.

Only sealed portions narrowly tailored
to confidential business information
and supported by a declaration.

19
20

SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: March 13, 2015

22

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
12

25
26
27
28

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unreadacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).

13

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

Case No.: 5:14-cv-4592-LHK
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL