United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL RE: DKT. NO.
273
LUCY
H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court is Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s
(“Plaintiff”) renewed motion to seal an exhibit
filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 273. “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 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing
request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is
the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Parties
seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are
“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause
of action, ” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the
burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings” that
outweigh the general history of access and the public
policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court
records generally exist “when such ‘court files
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, ’
such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However,
“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may
lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or
exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel
the court to seal its records.” Id.
Records
attached to motions that are “not related, or only
tangentially related, to the merits of a case, ” are
not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for
Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less
of a need for access to court records attached only to
non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying
cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated
or only tangentially related to the merits of a case must
meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ctr. for
Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1179-80. The “good cause” standard
requires a “particularized showing” that
“specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of
Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th
Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad
allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman
Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476
(9th Cir. 1992).
Pursuant
to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit
sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of
“a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of
“trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of
Torts, holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of
any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information
which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an
opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do
not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d
1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of
Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret]
relates to the production of goods. . . . It may, however,
relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the
business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original).
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from
being used “as sources of business information that
might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
In
addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with
the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant
to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a
request that establishes the document is “sealable,
” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”
Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must
conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. Civil
Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party
to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored
to seal only the sealable material” and that
“lists in table format each document or portion thereof
that is sought to be sealed, ” as well as an
“unredacted version of the document” that
“indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method,
the portions of the document that have been omitted from the
redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).
Here,
Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibit 65 attached to
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See
ECF No. 211 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment);
ECF No. 217-3 (Exhibit 65). As Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment is a dispositive motion related to the
merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the “compelling
reasons” standard applies to Plaintiff’s motion
to seal. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,
605 F.3d 665, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying
“compelling reasons” standard to a motion to seal
documents attached to summary judgment motion); Fujitsu
Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 2012 WL 6019754, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (same).
With
this standard in mind, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion to seal. Exhibit 65 includes several documents
designated as confidential by non-party AT&T Corporation,
including a resolution adopted in lieu of a meeting of the
board of directors and emails announcing the sale of the
business AT&T Language Line. However, AT&T
Corporation has not filed a declaration seeking that the
documents remain confidential, even though Plaintiff filed a
certificate of service indicating that AT&T Corporation
received notice of Plaintiff s renewed motion to seal.
See ECF No. 278. Thus, the Court has no basis to
conclude that the information in Exhibit 65 is sealable. In
addition, the terms of the actual sale of AT&T Language
Line are already public. ECF No. 220-3 to ECF No. 220-7.
Accordingly, the Court does not find “compelling
reasons” to seal Exhibit 65.
Within
fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff
shall, consistent with the above ...