Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-01045
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BOLD LIMITED, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING SEALING 9 v. MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH BRIEFING ON MOTION TO 10 ROCKET RESUME, INC., et al., DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 130, 131, 132, 155, 163]

12 13 Before the Court are the parties’ sealing motions relating to the briefing on Plaintiff Bold 14 Limited’s motion to disqualify counsel. See ECF No. 130, 131, 132, 155, 163. The Court has 15 considered the motions, and its rulings are laid out below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 21 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 22 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 23 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 24 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 26 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 27 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 1 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 2 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 4 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 6 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 7 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 8 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 9 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 10 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 11 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 12 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 13 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The Court finds that a motion to disqualify counsel is only tangentially related to the merits 16 of the case and will therefore apply the “good cause” standard to the sealing motions below. See 17 Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; accord WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd., No. 19- 18 CV-07123-PJH, 2020 WL 7133773, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2020). 19 A. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Motion to Disqualify 20 Counsel (ECF No. 130) 21 On November 10, 2023, Bold filed an administrative motion to consider whether another 22 party’s material should be sealed, identifying its motion to disqualify counsel, a declaration in 23 support of that motion, and two exhibits as containing information designated as “confidential” or 24 “highly confidential” by Defendants Rocket Resume, Inc., and Stephen Zimmerman. ECF No. 25 130 at 1. As of the date of this Order, Defendants have not filed a statement and/or declaration in 26 support of this motion under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). See, e.g., Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. 27 Corp., No. 17-CV-04405-HSG, 2022 WL 1131725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (denying 1 The Court rules as follows:

2 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 3 130-2 Bold Limited’s Notice Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply of Motion and Motion portions at 3:14- with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 4 to Disqualify Alston & 16, 3:18-21 Bird LLP; 5 Memorandum of Points & Authorities 6 130-3 Declaration of Tara D. Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply 7 Elliott (“Elliott Decl.”) portions at 1:25- with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 28. 8 130-4 Elliott Decl. Ex. B Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 9 130-5 Elliott Decl. Ex. D Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply 10 with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). The above denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants filing a statement and/or 11 declaration in support of sealing these documents. The Court notes that requests to seal must be 12 “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 13 14 B. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether a Third Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Motion to Disqualify 15 Counsel (ECF No. 131) On November 10, 2023, Bold filed an administrative motion to consider whether a third- 16 party’s material should be sealed, identifying exhibit C in support of its motion to disqualify 17 counsel as containing information designated as “confidential” by third party Jeffrey Stone. See 18 ECF No. 131 at 1. Bold also served the motion on Stone’s attorney. See ECF No. 133 at 2. As of 19 the date of this Order, Stone has not filed a statement and/or declaration in support of this motion 20 under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 21 The Court rules as follows: 22

23 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 131-2 Elliott Decl. Ex. C Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply 24 with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 25 The above denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Stone filing a statement and/or declaration in 26 support of sealing this document. The Court notes that requests to seal must be “narrowly tailored 27 to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). C. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection 1 with Its Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 131) 2 Bold filed an administrative motion to file under seal its motion to disqualify counsel and 3 certain declarations and exhibits in support of the motion. ECF No. 131. Bold argues that good 4 cause exists to seal information in these documents including “Bold’s non-public, confidential 5 internal business information . . . [and] public disclosure of this highly sensitive information 6 would cause competitive harm to Bold.” Id. at 2. In particular, these documents contain 7 information relating to Bold’s business model, corporate organization, business transactions, and 8 finances. Id. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s sealing motion. 9 Good cause exists to seal confidential business information, including non-public 10 information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, and corporate structure. 11 See Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 12-CV-03733-JST, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 12 June 18, 2019) (finding sealable non-public information concerning business transactions, 13 corporate structure, and settlement agreements under the more stringent compelling reasons 14 standard); Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Tr. v. Google LLC, No. 21-CV-07250-HSG, 2022 WL 15 4624985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to seal non-public 16 information related to a company’s business model); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 17 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 18 standing”). 19 The Court finds good cause to seal the information identified in the highlighted portions of 20 Bold’s motion to disqualify counsel and the two declarations as well as the entirety of Exhibits A 21 and B to the Lopez Declaration and Exhibit H to the Elliott Declaration. These exhibits discuss 22 non-public information about Bold’s corporate structure and business transactions, which if 23 released would cause Bold competitive harm. The Court further finds that Bold’s requests to seal 24 these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 25 However, the Court finds that Bold’s request to seal the entirety of Exhibit K is not narrowly 26 tailored. 27 The Court rules as follows: 132-3 Bold Limited’s Notice Highlighted GRANTED as containing 1 of Motion and Motion portions at 2:17- confidential business 2 to Disqualify Alston & 18, 4:21-23, 7:21- information, the release of which Bird LLP; 22. would cause a party competitive 3 Memorandum of Points harm. & Authorities 4 132-4 Declaration of Sofia Highlighted GRANTED as containing Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) portion at 2:2-5. confidential business 5 information, the release of which 6 would cause a party competitive harm. 7 132-5 Lopez Decl. Ex. A Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential business 8 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 9 harm. 10 132-6 Lopez Decl. Ex. B Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential business 11 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 12 harm. 13 132-7 Declaration of Tara D. Highlighted GRANTED as containing Elliott (“Elliott Decl.”) portion at 3:13-14. confidential business 14 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 15 harm. 132-8 Elliott Decl. Ex. H Entire document GRANTED as containing 16 confidential business 17 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 18 harm. 132-9 Elliott Decl. Ex. K Entire document DENIED as not narrowly 19 tailored. 20 The above denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed motion to seal Exhibit K 21 that includes narrow redactions. 22 D. Defendants Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in 23 Connection with Their Opposition to Bold’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 155) 24 Rocket Resume and Zimmerman filed an administrative motion to consider whether 25 another party’s material should be sealed, identifying Exhibit C to the Cox Declaration in support 26 of their opposition to Bold’s motion to disqualify counsel as containing information designated as 27 1 Bold filed a statement in support of the motion. ECF No. 161. Bold requests that the 2 entirety of Exhibit C remain under seal. Bold states that the exhibit consists of Bold’s responses 3 and objections to certain interrogatories propounded by Defendants, and that these responses 4 contain non-public information about Bold’s intercompany licensing relationships and brand 5 ownership strategies. Id. ¶ 4. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s statement. 6 As stated above, good cause exists to seal confidential business information, including 7 confidential information about a company’s business transactions and its business model. See 8 Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Elec. Arts, 9 298 F. App’x at 569. Although the Court good cause to seal some information in Exhibit C, such 10 as specific non-public information about Bold’s business transactions and business model, the 11 Court finds that Bold’s request to seal the entire document is not “narrowly tailored to seal only 12 the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 13 The Court rules as follows:

14 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 15 155-1 Cox Decl. Ex. C Entire document DENIED as not narrowly tailored. 16 The above denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed statement and/or 17 declaration in support of sealing this document that includes narrow redactions. 18 E. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 19 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Reply in Support of Its Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 163) 20 On December 1, 2023, Bold filed an administrative motion to consider whether another 21 party’s material should be sealed, identifying a declaration and an exhibit in support of its reply as 22 containing information designated as “highly confidential” by Rocket Resume and Zimmerman. 23 ECF No. 163 at 1. As of the date of this Order, Defendants have not filed a statement and/or 24 declaration in support of this motion under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 25 The Court rules as follows: 26 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 27 163-2 Declaration of Tara D. Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply Bold Limited’s Reply 1 (“Elliott Reply Decl.”) 2 163-3 Elliott Reply Decl. Ex. Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply A with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 3 The above denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants filing a statement and/or 4 declaration in support of sealing these documents. The Court notes that requests to seal must be 5 “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 III. ORDER 7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 9 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 10 130) is DENIED. Defendants may file a statement and/or declaration in support of sealing within 11 10 days of the date of this Order. 12 2. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether a Third 13 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 14 131) is DENIED. Third party Jeffrey Stone may file a statement and/or declaration in support of 15 sealing within 10 days of the date of this Order. 16 3. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection 17 with Its Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 131) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 18 PART. Bold may file a renewed motion to seal Exhibit K to the Elliott Declaration within 10 days 19 of the date of this Order. 20 4. Defendants Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman’s Administrative 21 Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Their 22 Opposition to Bold’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 155) is DENIED. Bold may file a 23 renewed statement and/or declaration in support of sealing within 10 days of the date of this 24 Order. 25 5. Plaintiff Bold Limited’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 26 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Reply in Support of Its Motion to 27 Disqualify Counsel (ECF No. 163) is DENIED. Defendants may file a statement and/or 1 declaration in support of sealing within 10 days of the date of this Order. 2 3 || Dated: January 3, 2024 fioinfracnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28