United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
RE: DKT. NOS. 180, 185, 188, 194, 199, 205
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In
connection with the parties' various discovery disputes
(Dkt. Nos. 179, 184, 187, 193, 198, 204), the parties filed
administrative motions to file certain documents under seal.
Dkt. Nos. 180, 185, 188, 194, 199, 205. Having considered
those motions, the Court grants in part and denies in part
the administrative motions, as set forth below.
There
is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to
judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive
motions that can be overcome only by a showing of
“compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the
presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing
matters that are only “tangentially related to the
merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016),
cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto
Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal
documents or information in connection with such a motion
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
The
parties' respective motions to seal concern matters that
are before the Court in connection with the parties'
production of documents and deposition testimony. The
underlying motion papers do not address the merits of the
parties' claims or defenses, but rather whether the
parties have produced discovery as required under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's discovery
orders. The Court therefore applies the “good
cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
Most of
the material proposed to be filed under seal constitutes
defendant Apple Inc.'s (“Apple”)
employee-specific compensation and performance information,
as well as plaintiff Raja Kannan's personal information.
Apple represents that this material is confidential or highly
confidential proprietary business information that, if
disclosed to the public, would cause competitive harm to
Apple, and that much of the information also includes private
personal information of its employees. Dkt. Nos. 185, 194,
205, 212, 213, 214.
Mr.
Kannan did not provide support for some of the material
proposed to be sealed as required under Local Rule
79-5(e)(1). In particular, Mr. Kannan designated as
confidential Exhibits B-F of the parties' joint discovery
letter concerning production of documents reflecting Mr.
Kannan's software application development (Dkt. No. 184),
but he did not provide a declaration supporting their
sealing. Dkt. No. 185 at 3-4. Nevertheless, the Court finds
that Exhibits B, D, and E contain private, personal
information of Mr. Kannan, such as his and his family's
personal contact information, and good cause therefore exists
to seal that information. However, Exhibits C and F do not
appear to contain any confidential information, and Mr.
Kannan has made no showing that they do. The Court concludes
that Mr. Kannan has not shown good cause to seal Exhibit C
and F to the joint discovery letter at Dkt. No. 184.
Accordingly,
the Court resolves the administrative motions to seal as
follows:
-
Document
|
Portions to be Sealed
|
Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Compensation
Information (Dkt. No. 179)
|
Exhibits B-K in their entirety
|
Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiff's
Production of Documents Related to His App
Development and His Family's Time in India
(Dkt. No. 184)
|
Exhibits B, D, E, J in their entirety
|
Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 187)
|
Exhibits A-E in their entirety
|
Apple's Opposition to Plaintiff's
Administrative Motion for Reconsideration Dkt. No.
193)
|
Exhibits B-F in their entirety
|
Joint Discovery Letter Brief re AEO Designations
(Dkt. No. 198)
|
Exhibits B-K in their entirety
|
Apple's Opposition to Plaintiff's
Administrative Motion for Discovery Ruling (Dkt.
No. 204)
|
Exhibit K, pgs. 8-23 Exhibit P in its entirety
|
Pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), Apple shall file Exhibits C
and F to the parties' joint discovery letter at Dkt No.
184 no earlier than ...