Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC
Filing
57
ORDER GRANTING #53 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/6/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
SPACE DATA CORPORATION,
Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF
Plaintiff,
6
v.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
7
8
X, et al.,
Defendants.
[Re: ECF 53]
9
10
Before the Court is Defendants’ Alphabet Inc. and Google Inc. (“Google”)’s motion to file
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
under seal its reply in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff Space Data Corporation (“Space
13
Data”)’s First Amended Complaint and supporting documentation. Mot., ECF 53. For the
14
reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion.
15
16
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
17
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
18
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
19
U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
20
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
21
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
22
motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
23
of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
24
access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
25
1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
26
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
27
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
28
their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the
2
merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto
3
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need
4
for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are
5
often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving
6
to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
7
Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
8
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
9
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
10
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.
12
Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during
13
discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the
14
documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows
15
the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to
16
determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)
17
(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents
18
as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).
19
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
20
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
21
79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
22
“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
23
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
24
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
25
submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
26
material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
27
sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
28
highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the
2
1
redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
2
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
3
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
4
II.
DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to Google’s motion to dismiss, which is more than
5
6
tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling
7
reasons standard. With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:
8
9
ECF
No.
53-4
Document to be
Sealed
Reply in Support of
Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss
53-6
Exhibit 1 to the
Reply Declaration of
Matthew M.
Werdegar in Support
of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss.
Exhibit 2 to the
Reply Declaration of
Matthew M.
Werdegar in Support
of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss
Exhibit 3 to the
Reply Declaration of
Matthew M.
Werdegar in Support
of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
53-8
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
53-9
Result
Reasoning
GRANTED as
to pages 3:21–
23; 4:5–7;
5:1–5.
GRANTED as
to the
highlighted
portions.
The redacted portions reference the materials
included in Exhibits 1–3 of the Reply
Declaration of Matthew M. Werdegar in
Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The redacted portions contain confidential
information pertaining to Space Data’s
financial and business models. See Knoblach
Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 56-2.
GRANTED as
to the
highlighted
portions.
The redacted portions include information
pertaining to Space Data’s confidential
information, which have been treated as
confidential, and which have been kept from
being known to the public. See Knoblach
Decl. ¶ 7.
Contains Space Data trade secrets. See
Knoblach Decl. ¶ 8.
GRANTED.
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 53 is GRANTED.
23
24
25
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
28
3
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?