Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC

Filing 372

ORDER GRANTING #355 PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL. No further action required. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/28/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ALPHABET INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 355]

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal portions of its fifth

14

amended complaint and certain exhibits thereto. Mot., ECF 355. For the reasons discussed

15

below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

21

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

22

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

23

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

24

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

25

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

26

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

27

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

28

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

1

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

2

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

3

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

5

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

6

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

7

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

8

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

9

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

12

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.

13

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

14

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

15

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

16

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

17

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

18

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

19

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

25

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

26

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

27

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

28

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2

1

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

2

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

3

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

4

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

5
6

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to the filing of an amended complaint, which is more

7

than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the

8

compelling reasons standard. The Court previously sealed information in the portions sought to be

9

redacted when ruling on Plaintiff’s motions to seal portions of its third and fourth amended
complaints and exhibits in support thereof. ECF 156, 349. In fact, the information sought to be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sealed in the fifth amended complaint is “identical (down to the page and line number) to the

12

information the Court considered in its August 31, 2018 []Order” sealing the fourth amended

13

complaint. Mot. at 1. Accordingly, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

14
15

ECF
No.
355-8

16

Document to be
Sealed
Fifth Amended
Complaint

17

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to all
highlighted
portions.

The highlighted portions designated by
Plaintiff contain technical proprietary
confidential information as well as
confidential financial and business
information of Plaintiff, disclosure of which
could harm Plaintiff. See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7,
ECF 355-1. Accord ECF 349.

18
19

As to the highlighted portions designated by
Defendants as confidential, those portions
contain Defendants’ confidential business and
financial information, disclosure of which
could harm Defendants. Resp. 1–2, ECF 358;
Yaghmour Decl. ¶¶ 4–6, ECF 348-1.
The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s
proprietary confidential information,
disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See
Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Accord ECF 349.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

355-9
355-10
355-11
355-12
355-13
355-14

Exhibit C to the Fifth GRANTED.
Amended Complaint

Exhibit D to the
Fifth Amended
Complaint

The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s
proprietary confidential information,
disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See
Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.

GRANTED.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5

355-15
355-16
355-17
355-18
355-19
355-20
355-21
III.

Exhibit H to the
Fifth Amended
Complaint

The entirety of the exhibit contains Plaintiff’s
proprietary confidential information,
disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff. See
Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.

GRANTED.

ORDER

6

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 355 is GRANTED. Because

7

redacted versions of the documents have already been filed in the public record, no further action

8

is required.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: November 28, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4