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

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING 48 NOMINAL DEFENDANT NETFLIX'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO KEEP UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF 46 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TOAMEND; DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO PUBLICLY FILE DOCUMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/4/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2019)

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,

12

ORDER GRANTING NOMINAL
DEFENDANT NETFLIX’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
KEEP UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
THE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND; DIRECTING DEFENDANT
TO PUBLICLY FILE DOCUMENT

13

[Re: ECF 48]

9
v.
10
11

REED HASTINGS, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02107-BLF

14
15

On February 13, 2019, the Court issued under seal its Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

16

with Leave to Amend. ECF 46. The Court directed the parties to confer and submit proposed

17

redactions to the Order. ECF 47. Nominal Defendant Netflix moves to seal certain financial

18

projections included in the order that the Court has previously allowed to be filed under seal,

19

which Plaintiff does not oppose. See Mot. at 2–3, ECF 48; Eggleton Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 48-1.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

25

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Netflix argues that the figures reflecting its projected global streaming revenues are

6

sensitive, confidential financial information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive and

7

business harm to Netflix because a competitor might use it to, for example, gain insight into

8

Netflix’s margins, commercial strategies, and internal operating procedures. See Yurechko Decl.

9

¶ 4, ECF 48-3. This Court has previously allowed these same figures to be filed under seal. See
ECF 20; ECF 40. The Court agrees with Netflix, as it has previously held, that release of this

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

confidential business information could harm Netflix. As such, compelling reasons exist to keep

12

these figures under seal. Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to exclude only

13

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

14

Netflix’s motion to seal the monetary figures at page 4, lines 5–7 and page 12, lines 5–7 of

15

the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Netflix is

16

ORDERED to publicly file the redacted version of the Order (ECF 48-2) on the docket on or

17

before March 8, 2019.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: March 4, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2