Tibco Software v. Kaazing Corporation

Filing 18

ORDER RE 3 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT AND EXHIBITS A AND B THERETO. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/19/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.,

Case No. 16-cv-06949-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

KAAZING CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
COMPLAINT AND EXHIBITS A AND B
THERETO

United States District Court
Northern District of California

[Re: ECF 3]
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff TIBCO Software Inc.’s (“TIBCO”) motion for administrative

14

relief to file under seal portions of its complaint and Exhibits A and B thereto. Mot., ECF 3. For

15

the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants

16

filing an opposition once they have appeared in the case.

17
18

I.

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

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a

23

sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is “sealable,” or

24

“privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The

25

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with

26

Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to

27

attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in

28

table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b),
2

1

and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method,

2

the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-

3

5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the

4

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that

5

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

6
7

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion at issue relates to TIBCO’s complaint, which is more than

8

tangentially related to the merits of the case, it is resolved under the compelling reasons standard.

9

TIBCO seeks to seal the Software License Agreement (“SLA”) between the parties and its
amendments, as well as portions of the complaint that reference concrete provisions of those

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

documents. Mot. 2. TIBCO declares that the terms and financial data included in the SLA are

12

highly confidential, and that TIBCO is contractually obligated to keep the terms confidential.

13

Knox Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 3-1. TIBCO also states that disclosure of the terms and financial data in the

14

SLA could subject it to legal liability; could be used by suppliers, customers, and business partners

15

to TIBCO’s disadvantage during business negotiations; and/or could result in the loss of trade

16

secret or other legal protection of the information. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7–8. TIBCO makes significant efforts

17

to safeguard the information. Id. ¶ 5.

18

The Court finds these reasons compelling and the request narrowly tailored. Accordingly,

19

the Court GRANTS TIBCO’s motion as to the identified portions of its complaint, and seals

20

Exhibits A and B to the complaint in their entirety.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 19, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3