Azenta, Inc. v. Andrews

Opinion

AZENTA, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-01952-JLS-JLB

Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL STEPHANIE ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants. [ECF Nos. 39; 44] Before the Court are Plaintiff Azenta, Inc.’s Motions to File Documents Under Seal. (ECF Nos. 39; 44.) In both motions, Plaintiff seeks to redact information from two exhibits attached to its motions1 to compel. (See ECF Nos. 38-2 at 6–7; 39; 43-2 at 6–7; 44.) 1 On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed both a motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ systems (ECF No. 38) and one of the instant motions to file documents under seal (ECF No. 39). In its motion to compel, Plaintiff improperly stated it submitted Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole “via email in native format”. (ECF No. 38-2 at 6–7.) On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of lodgment (ECF No. 41) and lodged the proposed sealed documents (ECF No. 42). On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ systems (ECF No. 43), fixing the error regarding how Exhibits A and B were submitted to the Court, and filed the second of the instant motions to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44). The Court notes the instant motions and the documents they seek the Court Plaintiff seeks to redact this information because it “contain[s] compilations of proprietary Azenta information, including customer and affiliate names, customer addresses, purchase order numbers, invoice numbers, shipment tracking numbers, and details regarding the dates and weights of shipments made by those customers and affiliates to Azenta.” (ECF Nos. 39 at 2; 44 at 2.) Plaintiff lodged with the Clerk’s Office both the unredacted and redacted version of Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole in native Microsoft Excel form. (ECF No. 42.) From the Court’s review of the documents, Plaintiff seeks to seal only the shipper names and addresses; consignee names and addresses; account, order, and invoice numbers; freight bills; and taxes paid. (See ECF No. 42.) These redactions are narrowly tailored. For instance, although the street addresses are redacted, the city, state, country, and postal codes remain public. (Id.) Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to make narrowly tailored redactions of its business information in Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder & Parts, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 21-CV-1197- W-MDD, 2023 WL 1806816 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) (sealing “confidential information relating to [the movant’s] business, the disclosure of which [was] likely to be commercially detrimental”); Primus Grp., Inc. v. Inst. for Env’t Health, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1267– 68 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (sealing information that would “reveal[] the identity of and information about specific customers” because “competitors could use this information to effectively target their marketing efforts without expending similar time and resources”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s second motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44) is 2. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B (ECF No. 42) UNDER SEAL. /// 3. Plaintiff's first motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 39) is DENIED as moot. Dated: October 13, 2023 -

n. Jill L. Burkhardt ited States Magistrate Judge