Barker v. Insight Global, LLC

Filing 248

SEALING ORDER re 240 , 246 . Dkt. 241 to remain under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 5/6/2019. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No.16-cv-07186-BLF (VKD) SEALING ORDER v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 240, 246 INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al., Defendants. Insight Global asks the Court to seal excerpts from the deposition testimony of its 14 corporate representative, David Lowance, filed provisionally under seal in connection with the 15 parties’ discovery dispute. See Dkt. Nos. 240, 241. Insight Global relies in part on the assertion 16 that it has designated the testimony “confidential” or “confidential—attorneys’ eyes only” under 17 the protective order (Dkt. No. 59), and those designations have not been challenged by Mr. Barker 18 or Beacon Hill. Dkt. No. 246, ¶¶ 5-6. However, as the protective order itself makes clear, parties 19 may not rely on their designations under the order as a basis to file material. Rather, a party must 20 comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 59 at 3-4. 21 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 22 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 23 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 26 “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 27 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 28 38 (2016). A party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 1 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 2 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 3 Insight Global asks the Court to seal excerpts of the deposition testimony of a corporate 4 representative to which the parties referred in briefing whether Insight Global had complied its 5 obligations under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 230. The 6 underlying briefing does not concern the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather 7 whether Insight Global should be required to provide further testimony on the noticed topics. This 8 briefing is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the 9 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 10 Insight Global has shown good cause to seal the materials identified at paragraph 7 of the United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Marquardt declaration for the reasons described therein. Dkt. No. 246. Accordingly, the Court 12 finds that the deposition filed under seal at Dkt. No. 241 may remain under seal. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2019 15 16 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?