Youtoo Technologies, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER granting 2 6 Motions to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/7/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TWITTER, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________)

3:17-cv-00414-LRH-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF Nos. 2,6

12
13

Before the court is Defendant Twitter, Inc.’s Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 2.) Twitter seeks an order

14

sealing portions of its Motion to Compel Strategic Gaming Management, LLC to Produce Documents

15

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (ECF No.1), as well as Exhibits 2 and 3 to the

16

Declaration of Laura Miller filed in support of that motion.

17

Also before the court is a second Motion to Seal filed by Twitter, where Twitter seeks an order

18

sealing portions of its reply brief filed in support of the motion to compel, as well as Exhibits 13-16 of

19

the Declaration of Laura Miller filed in support of the reply. (ECF No. 6.)

20

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

21

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

22

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “‘Throughout our

23

history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic

24

principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings.

25

These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained

26

in court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or

27

explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014)

28

(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).

1

Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts and warrant

2

materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the general right of public

3

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the

4

starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based

5

on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are

6

independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the

7

administration of justice.’” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th

8

Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71

9

F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294

10

(9th Cir. 1986)).

11

There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a document under

12

seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d

13

at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a

14

compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or

15

conjecture.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[

16

] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

17

Id. “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id.

18

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Examples include when a court

19

record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’

20

statements, or ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”

21

Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99).

22

Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, as the exception to

23

public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the

24

merits of a case.” Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-

25

14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance

26

of protective orders in the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect

27

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. (citing

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).
2

1

The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply in assessing

2

a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents proposed for sealing

3

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

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If that is the case, the compelling reasons standard is applied.

5

If not, the good cause standard is applied.

6

Here, in its first motion, Twitter seeks to file under seal portions of its motion to compel, as well

7

as Exhibits 2 and 3 to a declaration filed in support of that motion because the documents are designated

8

confidential in a protective order entered into in the underlying patent infringement lawsuit pending in

9

the Northern District of Texas, and the portions of the motion they seek to seal describe those

10

confidential documents. The motion to compel does not go to the merits of the action itself, but pertains

11

to third-party discovery. Therefore, the “good cause” standard applies.

12

In the second motion, Twitter again seeks to file under seal portions of its reply brief and exhibits

13

filed in support of the reply that pertain to documents designated as confidential pursuant to a protective

14

order entered into in the underlying patent infringement action.

15

The protective order entered into in the underlying patent infringement action allows the parties

16

to designate as confidential documents that contain trade secrets or commercial information that are not

17

publicly known and are of technical or commercial advantage to the possessor, or other information

18

required by law or agreement to remain confidential, including confidential research and development,

19

financial, technical, marketing or other information.

20

Rule 26 allows the court to protect “trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development

21

or commercial information[.]” As such, the court finds that good cause exists to seal the portions of the

22

motion to compel, Exhibits 2 and 3 filed in support of the motion, the portions of the reply brief, and

23

Exhibits 13-16 filed in support of the reply. Therefore, Twitter’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 2 and 6) are

24

GRANTED and those documents shall be SEALED.

25

DATED: August 7, 2017.

26
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3