Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co. et al

Filing 39

***ORDER DOCKETED IN ERROR - PLEASE DISREGARD*** ORDER GRANTING 35 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman oon 5/30/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2017) Modified on 5/30/2017 (tshS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JUICERO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

ITASTE CO., et al.,

[Re: ECF 35]

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-01921-BLF

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal portions of its motion for

13
14

preliminary injunction and declaration in support thereof. ECF 35. For the reasons discussed

15

below, the Court GRANTS the 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

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to a motion for preliminary injunction, which is more

6
7

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

8

compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-2 (holding that “public access

9

will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” and

10

finding that a “motion for preliminary injunction is more than tangentially related to the merits”).
With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

ECF
No.
35-4

14
15
16
17

35-6

Document to be
Sealed
Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary
Injunction
Declaration of
Michael Rosenthal

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.
GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

The highlighted portions contain proprietary
financial and research and development
information. See Arnold Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 35-1.
The highlighted portions contain proprietary
financial and research and development
information. See Arnold Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 35-1.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 35 is GRANTED. The Court

18

ORDERS Plaintiff to file its redacted version of its preliminary injunction motion and all the

19

supporting documents no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: May 30, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3