Lam Research Corporation v. Flamm

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING 35 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL. Plaintiff shall file redacted complaint with all exhibits by 9/8/2015 and certify service of the unredacted documents on Defendant. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 9/2/2015. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION,

Case No. 15-cv-01277-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

DANIEL L. FLAMM,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
PORTIONS OF AMENDED
COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 35]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Lam Research Corporation’s administrative motion to file

14

certain portions of its First Amended Complaint and supporting exhibits under seal. Pl.’s Mot.,

15

ECF 35.

16

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption

17

in favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

18

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

19

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Judicial records attached to dispositive motions are treated

20

differently from records attached to non-dispositive ones. Id. at 1180. A party seeking to seal

21

judicial records attached to non-dispositive motions need only show “good cause” under Federal

22

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to seal such records. Id. A party seeking to seal records in

23

connection with a dispositive motion, however, bears a higher burden of articulating “compelling

24

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

25

public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. It is this Court’s practice to hold requests to

26

seal portions of a complaint to the higher “compelling reasons” standard because the allegations in

27

a complaint so often establish the merits of the case. See Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13-

28

CV-04613-BLF, 2014 WL 4145520, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014); Adema Technologies,

1

Inc. v. Wacker Chemie AG, No. 5:13-CV-05599-PSG, 2013 WL 6622904, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

2

16, 2013); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C 06-06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3

3

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008).

4

Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such “‘court files might

5

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

6

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447

7

F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

8

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

9

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
records.” Id. at 1179. In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

follow Civil L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to

12

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added).

13

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal one paragraph of its First Amended Complaint, small portions

14

of Exhibit D to the First Amended Complaint, and the entirety of Exhibit E to the First Amended

15

Complaint. Plaintiff argues and attests that the portions of the First Amended Complaint and

16

Exhibit E sought to be sealed contain details regarding the structure of Plaintiff’s confidential

17

customer agreements that reveal the contracting parties’ obligations and may put Plaintiff at a

18

competitive disadvantage if disclosed to its competitors. Pl.’s Mot. 2; Decl. of Talin Gordnia ¶¶ 4,

19

8, ECF 35-1. Although Plaintiff argues that the “good cause” standard should apply to its request

20

to seal this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that

21

“compelling reasons” also support sealing and that the request is narrowly tailored. Likewise,

22

Plaintiff’s request to seal the portions of Exhibit D that reveal the identity of one of its customers

23

is narrowly tailored and supported by compelling reasons. See Pl.’s Mot. 3; Gordnia Decl. ¶ 6.

24

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal is therefore GRANTED, and the following

25

documents and portions thereof may remain under seal:

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

Document

Sealed Portions of Document

Lam Research Corp.’s First Amended
Complaint

Page 11, lines 27-28; Page 12, lines 1-4

Exhibit D to Lam Research Corp.’s First
Amended Complaint

Text marked by enclosure in a red text box
on pages 1, 2, and 3 of the unredacted
version of Exhibit D

Exhibit E to Lam Research Corp.’s First
Amended Complaint

Entire document

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff shall file into the record the public redacted version of its First Amended
Complaint and all accompanying exhibits by no later than September 8, 2015. By that date,
Plaintiff must also certify service of the unredacted version of the First Amended Complaint and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

exhibits on Defendant.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3