United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
RE: DKT. NO. 131
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.
before the Court is Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc.'s renewed
administrative motion to file under seal portions of
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record and the
Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in support of the Motion to
Supplement, as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of
Bradford C. Schulz in their entirety. See Dkt. No.
131. For the reasons articulated below, the Court
GRANTS the motion.
generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard
when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v.
Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.
2010). “This standard derives from the common law right
‘to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents.'”
Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).
“[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the
starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178
(quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption,
the party seeking to seal a document attached to a
dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons
supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the
judicial process” and “significant public
events.” Id. at 1178-79 (quotations omitted).
documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject
to the same strong presumption of access. See Id. at
1179. Because such records “are often unrelated, or
only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,
” parties moving to seal must meet the lower
“good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179-80 (quotations
omitted). This requires only 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 also 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) (quotations omitted).
the documents that Plaintiff seeks to seal relate to a
non-dispositive motion, the Court will apply the lower good
cause standard. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1
and 2 to the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in their
entirety, as well as the portions of Plaintiff's Motion
to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of Bradford C.
Schulz in support of the Motion to Supplement that discuss
those two exhibits. See Dkt. No. 131; see
also Dkt. No. 106. The Court had previously denied the
motion to seal these documents because the parties failed to
make the requisite showing of prejudice or harm. See
Dkt. No. 124 at 2-3 (citing Phillips, 307 F.3d at
1210-11). Instead, the parties relied on their designation of
the material as “RESTRICTED - ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY.” See id.
in response to the renewed motion, Defendant AGIS Software
Development LLC filed a declaration detailing that these
documents contain confidential business and proprietary
information relating to the operations of non-party Advanced
Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS Inc.”).
See Dkt. No. 136. Exhibits 1 and 2 are deposition
transcripts taken in connection with Advanced Ground
Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No.
9:14-cv-80651-DMM (S.D. Fl.), and contain information about
AGIS Inc.'s technology, business strategies, and
classified dealings with the government and military, which
if public, would place AGIS Inc. in financial risk and give
competitors an unfair advantage. Id. at ¶¶
the Court finds that the parties have provided good cause for
sealing Exhibits 1 and 2 in their entirety, as well as the
portions of Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement the Record and
the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz in support of the
Motion to Supplement that discuss those exhibits, as
indicated in the table below. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung
Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com,
LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1017
(E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8,
Docket Number Public/(Sealed)
Portions Sought to be Sealed
Plaintiff's Renewed Admin. Motion to Seal,
Dkt No. 131
106-8; 106-9; 131-7; and 131-8;
Exhibits 1-2 to the to the Declaration of Bradford C.
Schulz filed in support of Plaintiff's Motion to
Supplement the Record
GRANTED: confidential business information.
Excerpts of Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the
Pages and lines: 1:9-11; 2:20-3:3, & n.1; 4:8-12,
4:14-16; 4:26-5:5; 5:16-19; 5:21.
GRANTED: confidential business information
Excerpts of the Declaration of Bradford C. Schulz
filed in support of the Motion to Supplement the
Pages and lines: 1:25-27; 2:5-7.
GRANTED: confidential business information
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion, and pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), the documents identified
above will remain under seal.