City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System v. Hastings et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING 39 NOMINAL DEFENDANT NETFLIXS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS; VACATING ORDER AT 38 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/4/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF AND
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10
11

REED HASTINGS, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12

Case No. 18-cv-02107-BLF
ORDER GRANTING NOMINAL
DEFENDANT NETFLIX’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS TO DISMISS; VACATING
ORDER AT ECF 38
[Re: ECF 39]

13
On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System
14
15
16

(“Plaintiff”) filed an administrative motion to seal Netflix’s expected global streaming revenue for
the second quarter of 2015 in its opposition to Defendants’ and Nominal Defendant Netflix’s
(“Netflix”) motions to dismiss, indicating that Netflix had designated the revenue figure as

17
confidential. See ECF 36. As the designating party, Netflix was required to file a declaration in
18
support of the motion to seal within four days. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Netflix failed to meet
19
this deadline, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an unredacted version of its opposition.
20
Netflix now moves the Court to order that the relevant portion of the opposition remain under seal.
21
See Mot., ECF 39. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. See Eggleton Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 39-1.
22
23
24

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

25
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
26
27
28

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

1

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

2

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

3

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

4

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

5

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

6

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

7

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

8

Netflix argues that the figure reflecting its expected global streaming revenue for the
second quarter of 2015 is sensitive, confidential financial information, the disclosure of which

10

would cause competitive and business harm to Netflix because a competitor might use it to, for

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

example, gain insight into Netflix’s margins, commercial strategies, and internal operating

12

procedures. See Mot. at 2; Eggleton Decl. Ex. A ¶ 4. Moreover, this Court has previously

13

allowed this same monetary figure to be filed under seal. See ECF 20; Eggleton Decl. ¶ 7. The

14

Court agrees with Netflix, as it has previously held, that release of this confidential business

15

information could harm Netflix. Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to

16

exclude only sealable material as required by Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

17

As such, Netflix’s motion to seal the monetary figure at page 2, line 24 of Plaintiff’s

18

opposition to the motions to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court’s previous order (ECF 38)

19

directing Plaintiff to file the unredacted version of the opposition on the docket is VACATED, and

20

Plaintiff is ORDERED not to file the unredacted version of the opposition. Because Plaintiff has

21

publicly filed a redacted version and filed under seal an unredacted version, no further action is

22

necessary.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: September 4, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
2