Leonardo World Corporation v. Pegasus Solutions, Inc.,
Filing
12
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 4 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
LEONARDO WORLD CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
PEGASUS SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:15-mc-80165-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 4)
Before the court is an administrative motion to seal three documents. “Historically, courts
17
18
have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
19
judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
20
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records
21
22
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
23
24
25
26
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
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
3
Id. at 1178-79.
27
28
1
Case No. 5:15-mc-80165-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
1
2
mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
3
their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
4
to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
5
6
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
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order
11
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
12
cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
13
14
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
15
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
16
17
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
18
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
19
4
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
20
5
See id. at 1180.
21
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
22
7
Id.
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).
9
25
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10
26
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
11
27
28
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. 5:15-mc-80165-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?