Huynh v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Filing 175

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 155 PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/15/2020.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2020)

Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 175 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JERI CONNOR,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

QUORA, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 155]

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of her

13
14

opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and associated exhibits. Mot., ECF 155.

15

Plaintiff filed her request for two reasons: 1) portions of the materials were designated by

16

Defendant as “confidential” or “highly confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order

17

(ECF 64) and 2) the materials contain commercially sensitive documents and information

18

regarding Defendant’s business that the Court previously allowed to be filed under seal with

19

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, see ECF 148. Mot. 1. Defendant filed two

20

declarations in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal. See Decl. of Rebekah Guyon “(Guyon

21

Decl.”), ECF 157, and Decl. of Zhe Fu (“Fu Decl.”), ECF 158. For the reasons stated below,

22

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

23
24
25

I.

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 175 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 5

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

1097.
Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

5
6

sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil

7

Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to

8

seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that

9

is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file
a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

12

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

13

Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated

14

confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing

15

adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

16

The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has

17

been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

18

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of

19

the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a

20

responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the

21

Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later

22

than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

23
24
25

II.

DISCUSSION
Documents containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in this

26

Circuit. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing exhibit

27

containing trade secrets and adopting definition of trade secret as “any formula, pattern, device or

28

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to
2

Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 175 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 5

1

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it”). The Court has reviewed

2

Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declarations of the designating party submitted in support

3

thereof. The Court finds that the designating party has articulated compelling reasons to seal

4

certain portions of the cited brief and exhibits. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly

5

tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below.

6
7

ECF No.
150-1

Document to be Sealed
Declaration of David
Sun In
Support of Plaintiff’s
Opposition
to MSJ

150-4

Wood Decl., Ex. 1

150-4

Wood Decl., Ex. 3

GRANTED as to entire
document

150-4

Wood Decl., Ex. 4

GRANTED as to entire
document

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Result
GRANTED as to the
portions of the document
highlighted at:
¶ 8; ¶ 9; ¶ 10; ¶ 11; ¶ 12;
¶ 13; ¶ 14; ¶ 15; ¶ 16; ¶
17; ¶ 18
GRANTED as to the
following portions of the
document:
42:2-18;
45:4-16;
80:1-4;
80:23-25;
81:1-25;
82:1-25;
DENIED as to the rest of
the document

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Reasoning
This document contains
proprietary, non-public, and
competitively sensitive
technical details. Guyon
Decl. ¶ 3
The Court grants this request
as to the selected portions
because they contain nonpublic, proprietary, and
commercially sensitive
information. Fu Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.
The Court denies the request
to the remainder of the
document because
Defendant, the designating
party, stated that only the
specified section would
cause Defendant harm if
publicly disclosed. Fu Decl.
¶4
This document contains
information regarding
Defendant’s investigation
into the data breach, which
is non-public information
that could be used by a bad
actor. Additionally, this
document discloses nonpublic personal information
of individuals involved in
the investigation. Guyon
Decl. ¶ 4
This document contains
information regarding
Defendant’s investigation
into the data breach, which
is non-public information

Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 175 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

150-4

Wood Decl., Ex 5

GRANTED as to entire
document

151-2

Weinmann Decl., Ex D

GRANTED as to the
following portions of the
document:
41:1-21;
48:1-8;
48:25
66:22-25;
67:1-5;
67:13-20;
67:25;
68:1;
68:11-25;
69:1-24;
72:22-73:2;
73:18-22;
DENIED as to the rest of
the document.

151-3

Weinmann Decl., Ex E

GRANTED as to entire
document

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
4

that could be used by a bad
actor. Additionally, this
document discloses nonpublic personal information
of individuals involved in
the investigation. Guyon
Decl. ¶ 4
This document contains
information regarding
Defendant’s investigation
into the data breach, which
is non-public information
that could be used by a bad
actor. Additionally, this
document discloses nonpublic personal information
of individuals involved in
the investigation. Guyon
Decl. ¶ 4
The Court grants this request
as to the selected portions
because they contain nonpublic, information
regarding the data breach,
and a bad actor could use
this information to
perpetrate further attacks. Fu
Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 9.
Additionally, the material is
proprietary, non-public, and
competitively sensitive. Fu
Decl. ¶ 8.
The Court denies the request
to the remainder of the
document because
Defendant, the designating
party, stated that only the
specified section would
cause Defendant harm if
publicly disclosed. Fu Decl.
¶5
This document contains
information about
Defendant’s security
measures that, if disclosed,
could be used by a bad actor
to exploit or infiltrate
Defendant’s systems. Fu

Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 175 Filed 10/15/20 Page 5 of 5

1

154

2

Corrected Opposition to
Motion for Summary
Judgment

3
4
5
6
7
8

GRANTED as to the
portions of the document
highlighted at:
1:25-26;
6:11-14;
9:6-7;
9:13-15;
9:15-16;
10:19;
13:15-16;
16:7-8;
16:9-10

Decl. ¶ 10
These pages contain
proprietary, non-public, and
competitively sensitive
technical details. Guyon
Decl. ¶ 5

9
III.

ORDER

10
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of her opposition to Defendant’s

12
motion for summary judgment and associated exhibits.
13
14
Dated: October 15, 2020
15
16
17

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5