Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 10, 2022
• Docket: 3:13-cv-00628
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, Case No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB LLC, 5 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, 6 [ECF Nos. 191, 197, 200, 207] v. 7 SALESFORCE.COM, INC., et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court are several motions to seal filed by both Plaintiff and Defendant 11 in relation to various filings submitted to the Court for decisions. First, pending before the 12 Court are the following motions to seal filed by Plaintiff, which seek to seal the following: 13 (1) parts of the memoranda of points and authorities filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion 14 to compel discovery, (ECF No. 190), and certain exhibits attached thereto, (ECF No. 191); 15 (2) parts of the reply brief filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, (ECF 16 No. 199), and certain identified exhibits, (ECF No. 200); and (3) part of Exhibit “B” filed in 17 support of Plaintiff’s now withdrawn motion to modify the protective order, (ECF Nos. 206, 18 207.) Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal, which seeks to seal 19 parts of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, (ECF No. 195), and certain 20 exhibits attached in support of the opposition, (ECF No. 197). No oppositions have been 21 filed in response to these motions. Having reviewed each motion, the Court finds that 22 motions to seal, ECF Nos. 191, 197, 200, 207, should be granted. 23 “The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 24 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 25 Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 26 Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1068-70 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to 27 this right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts 1 and warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. United States v. Bus. of Custer 2 Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658 3 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 4 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 5 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards 6 that may apply: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See Ctr. 7 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The choice 8 between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for sealing 9 accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the case. Id. 10 at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard applies. If 11 not, the good cause standard applies. Id. at 1102. 12 However, courts “broad latitude” under Rule 26(c) “to prevent disclosure of 13 materials for many types of information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other 14 confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors 15 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). In making the 16 determination, courts should consider relevant factors, including “the public interest in 17 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 18 improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon 19 trade secrets . . . .” Foltz vs. State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 20 Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Moreover, given the “weaker public interest in 21 nondispositive materials,” the court applies the good cause standard in evaluating 22 whether to seal documents attached to a nondispositive motion. Pintos v. Pacific 23 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Although there is a 24 strong presumption in favor of allowing public access to court records, the presumption 25 is overcome “when court records may be used to . . . release trade secrets” or other 26 sensitive information. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 27 In this instance, the Court finds that the items that are requested to be sealed are 1| directly to dispositive issues central to this case. Therefore, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies to the motions to seal. Moreover, the Court has reviewed each item that both Plaintiff and Defendant seeks to seal or redact from public view. Based on 4| this review, the Court finds that each of the items that is requested to be sealed or redacted contains sensitive trade secrets, source code, and/or confidential financial 6 | information that is proprietary and the disclosure of such information would be harmful to 7 | the parties. Balancing the need for the public’s access to information requested against 8 | the need to maintain the confidentiality of this information, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal the information requested by both parties in this case. 10 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Seal, (ECF Nos. 191, 200, 207), are GRANTED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 197), is 13| also GRANTED. DATED: June 10, 2022 ‘

15 [8 crc 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28