Laatz et al v. Zazzle, Inc. et al

Filing 349

ORDER GRANTING 319 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDNATS' MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEALED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/27/2025. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2025) (Entered: 1/27/2025)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

NICKY LAATZ, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10

ZAZZLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff” or “Laatz”) Administrative Motion

13

15
16
17
18

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER
DEFENDNATS’ MATERIALS SHOULD
BE SEALED
[Re: ECF 319]

12

14

Case No. 5:22-cv-04844-BLF

to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed, filed in connection with her Motion
for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 311). ECF 319.
Defendants filed a statement in support of sealing the materials identified in Laatz’s motion. ECF
323. Plaintiff did not submit any response to Defendants’ statement in support of sealing.
For the reasons described below, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed, ECF No. 319, is GRANTED.

19
20
21

I.

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

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

22
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 &
23
24
25
26
27
28

n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of
access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more
than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the
presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1100–01 (9th

2

Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

3

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

4

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

5

F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to

6

court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated,

7

or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations omitted)).

8

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”

9

standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a “particularized

10

showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips

11

ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated

13

reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule

15

79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document

16

under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant

17

sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative

18

to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the

19

moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-

20

5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ.

21

L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

22

Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as confidential

23

by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another

24

Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing party need not satisfy

25

the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the party who designated the

26

material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, file a statement and/or

27

declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). A designating

28

party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response

2

to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

Because the motion to seal pertains to a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order

5

of a magistrate judge, which is only tangentially related to the merits of this action, the Court will

6

apply the “good cause” standard. See, e.g., Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 22-CV-04486, 2023 WL

7

5520771, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) (noting that the good cause standard applies to discovery-

8

related motions); Malig as Tr. for Malig Fam. Tr. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19-CV-02690, 2022 WL

9

1143360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (applying the good cause standard to documents related

10

to a motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s discovery order); Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation

11

Inc., No. 21-CV-02450, 2022 WL 6251047, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022) (applying the good cause

12

standard to a sealing motion pertaining to a discovery letter brief).

13

Defendant argues that the information designated by Zazzle should be kept under seal as

14

confidential and the information at issue was the subject matter of an earlier motion to seal. See ECF

15

323 at 1 (citing ECF 307). The Court agrees with Defendant that the designated information

16

concerns subject matter that the Court previously granted sealing. See ECF 348. Thus, the Court

17

GRANTS the Parties’ sealing request for the reasons provided in its prior order.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS redactions as outlined in the below chart.

ECF No.

Document

320/(319 Plaintiff’s Motion
-2)
for Relief from
Nondispositive
Pretrial Order of
Magistrate Judge

Portion(s) to Seal
Highlighted portions at
1:27-2:1

26
27
28
3

Ruling
GRANTED as previously
discussed in the Court’s Order
Granting In Part and Dening In
Part Plaintiff’s Administrative
Motion to Consider Whether
Defendants’ Materials Should Be
Sealed and Granting Defendants’
Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal. ECF 348.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: January 27, 2025
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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