Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

Filing 259

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL (ECF Nos. 217 , 230 , 243 ) - IT IS SO ORDERED that Motions to Seal, (ECF Nos. 217 , 230 , 243 ), are GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 7/13/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD)

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 259 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME,
LLC,

5

Case No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Plaintiff,
6

[ECF Nos. 217, 230, 243]
v.

7
SALESFORCE, INC.,
8
Defendant.
9
10
Before the Court are several motions to seal, (ECF Nos. 217, 230, 243), filed by
11
the parties in relation to various filings submitted to the Court for decision in relation to
12
outstanding discovery motions. Having reviewed each motion, the Court finds that
13
motions to seal, (ECF Nos. 217, 230, 243), should be granted.
14
15

“The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News

16
Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v.
17
Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this
18
right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and
19
warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. United States v. Bus. of Custer
20
Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658
21
F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
22
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).
23
If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards
24
that may apply: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See Ctr.
25
for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The choice
26
between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for sealing
27
28

accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the case. Id.

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 259 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 3

1

at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard applies. If

2

not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.

3

However, courts “broad latitude” under Rule 26(c) “to prevent disclosure of

4

materials for many types of information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other

5

confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors

6

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). In making the

7

determination, courts should consider relevant factors, including “the public interest in

8

understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

9

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon

10

trade secrets . . . .” Foltz vs. State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

11

Cir. 2003). Moreover, “[g]iven the ‘weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,’ the

12

court applies the good cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached

13

to a nondispositive motion.” Snap Lock Indus., Inc. v. Swisstrax Corp., No. 2:17-CV-

14

02742-RFB-BNW, 2021 WL 3082561, at *1 (D. Nev. July 21, 2021) (citations omitted).

15

Although there is a strong presumption in favor of allowing public access to court records,

16

the presumption is overcome “when court records may be used to . . . release trade

17

secrets” or other sensitive information. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

18

In this instance, the Court finds that the items that are requested to be sealed in

19

this instance are generally related to items that have been disclosed during discovery and

20

are not related directly to dispositive issues central to this case. Therefore, the Court finds

21

that the “good cause” standard applies to the motions to seal at issue in this case.

22

Moreover, the Court has reviewed each item that both the parties seek to seal or redact

23

from public view and finds the disclosure of such information would be harmful to the

24

parties. Balancing the need for the public’s access to information requested against the

25

need to maintain the confidentiality of this information, the Court finds that good cause

26

exists to seal the information requested by both parties in this case.

27

///

28

///
2

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 259 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3
4

Therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED that Motions to Seal, (ECF Nos. 217, 230, 243),
are GRANTED.
July 13, 2022
DATED: ______________.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3