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

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING #78 , #81 MOTIONS TO SEAL AND TERMINATING #74 MOTION AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/1/2017.(blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

8

[Re: ECF 74, 78, 81]

X, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF

12
Before the Court are Plaintiff Space Data Corporation (“Space Data”)’s motions to file

13
14

under seal portions of its Second Amended Complaint, proposed Third Amended Complaint and

15

exhibits thereto. ECF 74, 78, 81. The motion at ECF 81 is a corrected version of the motion at

16

ECF 74. The motions are unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS

17

Space Data’s motions.

18
19

I.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

12

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

II.

DISCUSSION

8

Because the sealing motions relates to Space Data’s complaints, which is more than

9

tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motions are resolved under the compelling

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

reasons standard. With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
ECF
No.
74-8

Document to be
Sealed
Second Amended
Complaint

74-9
74-10
74-11
74-12
74-13
74-14

Exhibit C to the
Second Amended
Complaint

GRANTED.

Exhibit D to the
Second Amended
Complaint

GRANTED.

78-4

Third Amended
Complaint

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

78-5
78-6
78-7
78-8
78-9

Exhibit C to the
Third Amended
Complaint

GRANTED.

13

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

The highlighted portions contain technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets, as well as
confidential financial and business
information that is competitively sensitive.
See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF 81-1.
The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
¶ 5.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
¶ 6, ECF 81-1.
The highlighted portions contain technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets, as well as
confidential financial and business
information that is competitively sensitive.
See Ritchie Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF 78-1.
The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
¶ 5, ECF 78-1..

1

78-10

2
3
4
5

Exhibit D to the
Third Amended
Complaint

GRANTED.

The entirety of the exhibit contains technical
proprietary confidential information, including
Space Data’s trade secrets. See Ritchie Decl.
¶ 6, ECF 78-1.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 78, 81 are GRANTED. The sealing
motion at ECF 74 has been corrected by the motion at ECF 81 and thus is TERMINATED as
moot.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 1, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4