Pinnacle Ventures LLC et al v. Bertelsmann Education Services

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING 34 DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/12/2018. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

PINNACLE VENTURES LLC, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10
11

BERTELSMANN EDUCATION
SERVICES,

Case No. 18-cv-03412-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL AT ECF 34

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Before the Court is Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential

13
14

Information in its Reply in Further Support of Amended Motion to Dismiss. Mot., ECF 34.

15

Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendant’s motion. For the reasons stated below,

16

Defendant’s motion at ECF 34 is GRANTED.

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 & Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and declaration submitted in support

4
5

thereof. Defendant states that the document sought to be sealed in part contains confidential

6

information related to financial transactions involving, Defendant, Plaintiff Pinnacle Ventures,

7

LLC, and non-party private company HotChalk, Inc. (“HotChalk”). Mot. at 1; Moreno Decl. ¶ 3,

8

ECF 34-1. The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling reasons to seal certain

9

portions of the submitted document and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The

10

Court’s ruling on the sealing request is set forth in the table below:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

13

34-4

Defendant’s Reply in
Further Support of
Amended Motion to
Dismiss

14
15

Result
GRANTED as to
highlighted portions at
pages 6 7, 9, and 10.

16
17

Reasoning
The proposed redacted portions at
pages 6, 7, 9, and 10 contain
confidential business and financial
information of non-party private
company HotChalk, the disclosure
of which would cause competitive
harm to HotChalk. Moreno Decl.
¶ 3; Mot. at 1.

18
19
20
21
22

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion at ECF 34 is GRANTED. Defendant need

not refile the lesser redacted version of the document, as Defendant has already filed that version
as an attachment to ECF 34.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 12, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
2