Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOPE CHUNG, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03074-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 INTELLECTSOFT GROUP CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 168 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to seal documents in 14 support of their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 168. Defendants seek to file under seal 15 Exhibits A-Y to the declaration of Richard de Bodo in support of Defendants’ motion for 16 summary judgment (the “de Bodo Declaration”). The Court will deny the motion. 17 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 18 Rule 79-5 and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to most judicial 19 records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Local 20 Rule 79-5 requires that the request “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 21 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” and that 22 it “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). For judicial 23 records attached to dispositive motions, the party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate 24 “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records and 25 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion 26 amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 27 F.3d at 1178). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons 1 policies favoring disclosure.’ ” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79). 2 Defendants’ motion to seal does not meet these requirements. First, in their motion, 3 Defendants seek to seal documents designated confidential by Plaintiffs in this litigation. See e.g., 4 ECF No. 168-3 at 21 (Deposition of Picture Mandarin LLC and Hope Chung), 29 (Plaintiffs’ 5 Amended Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 1), 62 6 (Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 2- 7 5). Civil L.R. 79-5(f) requires that requests to seal documents designated confidential by another 8 party be brought as a separate administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material 9 should be sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f); see also, Standing Order Governing Administrative Motions 10 to File Materials Under Seal Before District Judge Jon S. Tigar, dated March 14, 2022. 11 Defendants must file a separate motion under Civil L.R. 79-5(f) as to these documents. 12 As to the balance of Defendants’ requests, Defendants do not articulate why the materials 13 to be sealed satisfy the compelling reasons standard. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1)-(3). Defendants 14 request the Court seal, in the aggregate, 25 separate exhibits without explaining how each specific 15 document satisfies the compelling reasons standard. Instead, Defendants make broad assertions 16 that the exhibits as a group “contain documents reflecting detailed negotiated terms between the 17 parties, confidential information related to the Plaintiffs’ finances and funding, as well as strategy 18 regarding the parties’ product and projects.” ECF No. 168 at 3. Defendants must provide an 19 adequate justification for the sealing of each individual document. Defendants also support their 20 request with a declaration that merely states that “[c]ertain documents lodged by Defendant in 21 support of its Motion for Summary Judgment constitute Confidential Information under the 22 Protective Order and/or trade secrets.” ECF No. 168-1 at ¶ 3. As the Local Rules make clear, 23 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 24 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” 25 Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 26 Defendants’ motion is also not narrowly tailored. For example, Defendants do not explain 27 why information such as the fact that “IntellectSoft, LLC is a professional company and is part of 1 is the founder and CEO of a company called 2ULN, Inc. are confidential (ECF No. 168-3 at 28). 2 See In re Uber Text Messaging, No. 18-CV-02931-HSG, 2019 WL 8200602, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 3 30, 2019) (concluding that Uber did not establish compelling reasons “to seal highly relevant 4 || information, including [the deponent’s] definitions of various technical terms (such as ‘back-end 5 services’ and ‘epoch’), the basis of his declaration, foundation for his familiarity with the exhibits 6 he provided, and third-party sources from which Uber collects personal information”). Nor is it 4 clear how the link sharing history of the Picture Mandarin 1OS.zip file satisfies the compelling g reasons standard. ECF No. 168-3 at 379-85. 9 For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to seal. As to the documents 10 designated confidential by Plaintiffs, Defendants are ordered to file an administrative motion to i consider whether another party’s material should be sealed under Local Rule 79-5(f) within 7 days

of this order. Defendants may also file a renewed administrative motion to seal portions of the E B remaining exhibits to the de Bodo Declaration within 7 days of this order. If Defendants file a 4 renewed motion, it shall comply with the Local Rules and the Court’s Standing Orders; be 5 15 narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the documents or portions thereof that satisfy the 16 compelling reasons standard; and articulate why the materials to be sealed satisfy that standard.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Z 18 Dated: November 7, 2023 . 19 Op Sap JON S. TIGAR 20 nited States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28