Pinnacle Ventures LLC et al v. Bertelsmann Education Services

Filing 97

OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING 83 , 88 , 91 , 94 PARTIES' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/10/2019. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2019)

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
OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING
PARTIES’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 83, 88, 91, 94]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Before the Court are several unopposed administrative motions to file under seal

13
14

documents relating to (1) Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims; (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to

15

Dismiss and Special Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaims; (3) Defendants’ Opposition;

16

and (4) Plaintiffs’ Reply.
The motions are GRANTED for the reasons discussed below.

17
18

I.

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

19
20

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

21

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

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the

23

merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for

24

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only

25

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at

26

1097.

27
28

Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part

1

must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

2

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

3

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

4

sealable.” Id.

5

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the parties’ sealing motions relate to Defendant’s pleading and the briefing on

6
7

Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and strike that pleading, the sealing motions are more than

8

tangentially related to the merits of the case. Thus, the compelling reasons standard applies.

9

Having reviewed the parties’ motions and supporting declarations, the Court concludes that the
parties’ have articulated compelling reasons to seal portions of the documents at issue and that the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing motions are set forth

12

below.

13
14

ECF No.

15

83-4

88-4

16

Document to be Sealed

Ruling

Reasoning

Defendant’s Answer to First
Amended Complaint and
Counterclaims

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions
of paragraphs 1, 2, 6,
8, 9, 11, 12, 24-27,
29, 37, 39, 40, 48-50,
52, 53, 94, 96, 98102, 104-109, 115,
and 120.

The proposed
redacted portions
describe or quote
business, financial,
and other information
regarding non-party
private company
HotChalk, Inc., the
disclosure of which
would cause
competitive harm to
HotChalk. Moreno
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 83-1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
and Special Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Counterclaims

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions
of pages 2, 4, 5, 8, 9,
11, and 12.

The proposed
redacted portions
contain sensitive,
non-public, and
confidential business
and financial
information relating
to Plaintiffs,
Defendant, and
HotChalk, a privately
held company that is
not a party to this
action. This

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

information could
cause competitive
harm to Plaintiffs,
Defendant, and
HotChalk if made
public. Lutz Decl. ¶¶
2-8, ECF 88-1.

1
2
3
4
5

88-6

Exhibit A to Declaration of
Brian Lutz in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
and Special Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Counterclaims

GRANTED as to
entire document

The document is a
loan and security
agreement entered
into between
Plaintiffs and
HotChalk. It contains
sensitive, non-public,
and confidential
business and financial
information relating
to Plaintiffs and thirdparty HotChalk. Lutz
Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, ECF 881.

88-8

Exhibit A to Declaration of
Brian Lutz in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
and Special Motion to Strike
Defendant’s Counterclaims

GRANTED as to
entire document

The document is a
loan and security
agreement entered
into between
Defendant and
HotChalk. It contains
sensitive, non-public,
and confidential
business and financial
information relating
to Defendant and
third-party HotChalk.
Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 2-8,
ECF 88-1.

91-4

Defendant’s Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss
and Special Motion to Strike
Counterclaims

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions
of pages 3, 4-6, 12,
14, 16, 18-19, and 21.

The proposed
redacted portions
describe sensitive
business, financial,
and other information
related to non-party
private company
HotChalk and/or
Defendant, that if
disclosed would harm
HotChalk’s
competitive standing
in the market and
Defendant’s leverage
to negotiated future
financing. Moreno
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 91-1
.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

94-4

2
3

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion to Dismiss and Special
Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Counterclaims

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions
of pages 8 and 11.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The proposed
redacted portions
contain sensitive,
non-public, and
confidential business
and financial
information relating
to Plaintiffs,
Defendant, and
HotChalk, Inc., a
privately held
company that is not a
party to this action.
This information
could cause
competitive harm to
Plaintiffs, Defendant,
and HotChalk if made
public. Lutz Decl. ¶¶
2-5, ECF 94-1.

12
13
14
15

III.

ORDER
The parties’ sealing motions filed at ECF 83, 88, 91, and 94 are GRANTED. The parties

have filed redacted versions of the documents in question. No further action is required.

16
17
18
19

Dated: December 10, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4