Sumotext Corp. -v- Zoove, Inc., et al

Filing 161

ORDER DENYING 160 SUMOTEXT CORPORATION'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/6/2017.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SUMOTEXT CORP.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-01370-BLF

v.
ZOOVE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING SUMOTEXT
CORPORATION’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 160]

12
13

Plaintiff Sumotext Corporation has filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibit E to the

14

Declaration of Julie D. Greathouse, filed in support of Sumotext’s reply regarding its motion to

15

amend its pleading. See Admin. Motion, ECF 160. Sumotext states that it does not agree that

16

Exhibit E contains sealable material, but it has filed the administrative motion to seal because

17

Exhibit E has been designated as confidential by Defendants.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

22

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

23

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

24

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

25

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

26

In addition to satisfying the “compelling reasons” test, sealing motions filed in this district

27

must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party

28

moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

1

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

2

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

3

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

4

Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated

5

confidential by another party, the burden of establishing compelling reasons for sealing is placed

6

on the designating party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

7

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of

8

the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a

9

responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the
Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

12

Because Exhibit E is submitted in connection with briefing on Sumotext’s motion for leave

13

to amend its pleading, it is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and therefore

14

may be sealed only upon a showing of compelling reasons. No designating party has filed a

15

declaration supporting the sealing of Exhibit E and the deadline to do so has elapsed.

16

Accordingly, Sumotext’s administrative motion to seal is DENIED. Sumotext may file the

17

document in the public record no earlier than four days, and no later than ten days, after the date of

18

this order.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: March 6, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2