CollegeSource, Inc. v. Academyone, Inc.

Filing 214

ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part 197 Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to file the Declaration of David Landau with attached Exhibits A-D under SEAL and DENIES Defendant's motion as to Exhibit E. The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to file under seal the memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the response to amended statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 3/29/2013. (sjt)(jrd)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLLEGESOURCE, INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 08cv1987-GPC(MDD) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 15 16 ACADEMYONE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, [Dkt. No. 197.] Defendant. 17 18 On March 8, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to file documents under seal in connection with 19 its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 197.) It seeks to file the 20 memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 21 judgment; its response to amended statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion for 22 partial summary judgment; and the Declaration of David Landau with attached exhibits under seal. 23 There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the common law and 24 the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. 25 Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access 26 may be denied to protect sensitive confidential information. Courts are more likely to protect 27 information covered by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but are not limited by items 28 listed in protective orders. See KL Group v. Case, Kay, & Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir. -1- [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)] 1 1987) (letter to client from attorney); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365-67 (D. Nev. 1993) 2 (confidential settlement agreement). 3 Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high threshold 4 requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a sealing. Kamakana v. City 5 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 6 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). However, for non-dispositive motions, the 7 parties must show a lesser “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard pursuant to 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180. The “compelling reasons” test requires showing 9 more than just “good cause.” Id. Documents filed under seal will be limited to only those documents, 10 or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information. 11 Defendant moves to file under seal the documents listed above pursuant to the protective order 12 entered in CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., in case no. 10-3542 in the Eastern District of 13 Pennsylvania on July 1, 2011. In that protective order, the parties agreed that any document filed in 14 the action which contains materials designated as “confidential information” or “attorneys’ eyes only” 15 shall be filed under seal. Defendant specifically describes the exhibits attached to the Landau 16 declaration and references the protective order to support its request. While simply noting that a party 17 designated a document as confidential pursuant to a protective order is not a particularized showing, 18 Brocade Comm'ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL 211115, at *1 19 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 17, 2013), in this case, the parties agreed to have such documents filed under seal. The 20 Court concludes that such agreement that was signed and filed by the Court satisfies the compelling 21 reasons standard. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file these documents under seal 22 with the exception of Exhibit E, which is a copy of the protective order publicly filed in the 23 Pennsylvania case. However, Defendant has failed to show a compelling reason why the entire 24 memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 25 judgment and the response to amended statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion 26 for partial summary judgment should be filed under seal. 27 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file the Declaration of David Landau 28 with attached Exhibits A-D under SEAL and DENIES Defendant’s motion as to Exhibit E. The Court -2- [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)] 1 DENIES Defendant’s motion to file under seal the memorandum of points and authorities in 2 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and the response to amended statement 3 of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.1 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 DATED: March 29, 2013 7 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Documents under seal will be limited to only those portions necessary to protect sensitive information. Accordingly, a redacted document may be appropriate to protect the portions of the brief containing confidential information. -3- [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?