United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL [RE: ECF 111, 124,
129]
BETH
L. FREEMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court are three administrative motions to seal, one from
Plaintiff Justin Darisse and two from Defendant Nest Labs,
Inc. See Mots., ECF 111, 124, 129. All three sealing
motions relate to the briefing on Darisse’s motion for
class certification. See Id. For the reasons stated
below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 &
County 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)). 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 policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th
Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
However,
“while protecting the public’s interest in access
to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties’
right to access those same courts upon terms which will not
unduly harm their competitive interest.” Apple Inc.
v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29
(Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are
“not related, or only tangentially related, to the
merits of a case” therefore 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.”). Parties moving to seal the documents
attached to such motions must meet the lower “good
cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
This standard requires a “particularized showing,
” id., 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 of articulated
reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc.
v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.
1992). A protective order sealing the documents during
discovery may reflect the court’s previous
determination that good cause exists to keep the documents
sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a
blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate
confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial
scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should
remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)
(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that
allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential
is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions
thereof, are sealable.”).
In
addition to making particularized showings of good cause,
parties moving to seal documents must comply with the
procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ.
L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a
request that establishes the document is “sealable,
” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”
“The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R.
79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)
requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,
” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted
version of the document” that indicates “by
highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the
document that have been omitted from the redacted
version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days
of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under
Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as
required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of
the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R.
79-5(e)(1).
II.
DISCUSSION
Because
the parties’ class certification briefing is more than
tangentially related to the merits of this case, the Court
applies the compelling reasons standard. With that standard
in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
-
ECF No.
|
Document to be Sealed
|
Result
|
Reasoning
|
111-11
|
Nest’s opposition to Darisse’s motion
for class certification
|
Designations highlighted in yellow at
24:14-17, 20-22
SEALED; remainder UNSEALED.
|
Sealed designations contain confidential business
information. Unsealed designations contain
information designated as confidential by Darisse,
but Darisse has not filed a declaration in support
as required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
|
111-12
|
Wilson Decl. in support of Nest’s opposition
|
UNSEALED.
|
Declaration in support of sealing does not request
sealing of Wilson declaration.
|
111-13
|
Exhibits 205-206 to Wilson Decl.
|
UNSEALED.
|
Ex. 205 contains information designated as
confidential by Darisse, but Darisse has not filed
a declaration in support as required by Civ. L.R.
79-5(e)(1).
Ex. 206 does not contain Darisse’s
confidential information, as stated in Nest’s
declaration in support of its motion to seal.
Compare Wilson Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 111-12, with Ex.
206, ECF 111-13.
|
111-14
|
Blasnik Decl. in support of Nest’s opposition
|
Designations highlighted in orange at
5:5, 13-18, 20, 23-24, 26-28;
6:1;
7:1-7, 12-13
SEALED; remainder UNSEALED.
|
Only sealed portions contain confidential business
information.
|
111-15
|
David Decl.
|
Designations highlighted in yellow on pages 3, 23,
24, A1-3 SEALED.
|
Sealed designations contain confidential business
information.
|
124-4
|
Darisse’s Reply
|
Designations highlighted in turquoise at 2:3-8,
3:4, 24-25, 13:14-15
SEALED; remainder UNSEALED.
|
Only sealed portions contain confidential business
information.
|
124-6
|
Darisse’s Reply Decl.
|
Designation highlighted in turquoise at Exhibit D,
45:6-9 SEALED.
|
Sealed portion contains Darisse’s identifying
personal information.
|
124-8
|
Persinger Decl.
|
Exhibit A, 64:13-20, 80:16-24;
Exhibits B, C, F, and L
SEALED; remainder UNSEALED.
|
Only sealed portions contain confidential business
information. Unsealed designations contain generic
business and marketing principles, non-confidential
business information, or information disclosed by
Nest on its website and public materials. Exhibit G
was not filed with the Court in its redacted or
unredacted form and so the request to seal it is
DENIED.
|
124-10
|
Weir Decl.
|
UNSEALED.
|
Unsealed designation contains information
designated as confidential by Nest, and Nest
indicates that sealing is unnecessary. See Reiten
Decl. at 1 n.1, ECF 128.
|
129-2
|
Ex. 35 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
Personal contact information SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
|
Unsealed designations are a discussion of a
promotional blog post and what message to use in
it. The blog post has been publicly published,
including the proposed messages. The unsealed
designations are no longer confidential business
information.
|
129-3
|
Ex. 37 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
UNSEALED.
|
Does not contain confidential business information.
|
129-4
|
Ex. 38 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
UNSEALED.
|
Does not contain confidential business information.
|
129-5
|
Ex. 101 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
Designations outlined in red at
147:1-15 SEALED; remainder UNSEALED.
|
Only sealed portions contain confidential business
information.
|
129-6
|
Ex. 102 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
UNSEALED.
|
Does not contain confidential business information.
|
129-7
|
Ex. 103 to Fisher Decl. in support of
Darisse’s motion for class certification
|
Designations outlined in red SEALED.
|
Sealed portions contain confidential business
information.
|