1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., EXHIBITS 11 Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 88, 95, 101
12 Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff”) administrative motion, filed in 13 connection with her pending Refiled Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), to consider 14 whether another party’s material should be sealed, ECF No. 88; (2) Defendant Zazzle, Inc.’s 15 (“Zazzle”) sealing statement regarding Plaintiff’s administrative motion, ECF No. 95; and (3) 16 Zazzle’s administrative motion to seal regarding an exhibit filed in support of its opposition to 17 Plaintiff’s MSJ, ECF No. 101. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable sealing 18 law, the Court GRANTS Zazzle’s requests to seal. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 25 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 26 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 27 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 1 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 2 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such 4 ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 5 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 6 circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as sources of business 7 information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 8 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production 9 of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 10 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 11 “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will 12 not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 13 omitted). And although a protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect a 14 court’s previous determination that good cause—a lower threshold than that required for finding a 15 compelling reason to seal—exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179– 16 80, a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not 17 provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain 18 sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 19 party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, 20 or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 21 In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 22 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 23 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 24 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 25 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 26 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 confidential, i.e., information related to (1) Zazzle’s network infrastructure and security practices, 2 ECF No. 95, at 1, and (2) its internal financial and business strategies as revealed in certain pricing 3 terms and conditions, ECF No. 101, at 1. With regard to the former, Zazzle requests the Court 4 seal approximately two pages of deposition testimony and four lines in Plaintiff’s MSJ citing the 5 same deposition testimony on the basis that Zazzle’s network infrastructure and security practices 6 are “sensitive business information” that if disclosed publicly could put Zazzle at a competitive 7 business disadvantage or “jeopardize the security of Zazzle’s network.” Decl. of Liana Larson ¶ 8 4, ECF No. 95-1; see also ECF Nos 89, 89-47. As for the latter request, Zazzle requests the court 9 seal portions of one line of a licensing agreement under the heading “Payment and Taxes” on the 10 basis that public disclosure of its pricing terms and conditions would permit both future licensors 11 and Zazzle’s competitors access to Zazzle’s confidential business thinking and thereby harm 12 Zazzle’s competitive standing and ability to negotiate future agreements. Decl. of Patrick Haley ¶ 13 4, ECF No. 101-1; see also ECF No. 102-15. 14 The Court finds that Zazzle has established compelling reasons to seal information that 15 would reveal its network security information and internal business and financial decision-making 16 strategies. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling 17 reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); 18 Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 19 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss 20 Plaintiff's network infrastructure and security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 21 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons 22 may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product- 23 specific financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted). The 24 public interest in this information is limited where the content sought to be sealed is irrelevant to 25 the issues raised in the related MSJ. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (finding that the reason for 26 the higher standard for sealing documents related to dispositive motions is because “resolution of 27 a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of” the public interest so the public has less of a need to 1 Additionally, the Court finds Zazzle’s sealing requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no 2 || less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Zazzle’s sealing requests as set forth in the table below: 4 Public ECF No./ Document to be Result Reasoning (Sealed ECF No.) _ Sealed 5 89 / (88-1) Plaintiff's brief in GRANTED. | The portions of the document that support of her MSJ Zazzle seeks to seal cites to 6 (highlighted portions deposition testimony revealing at 2:6; 4:13; 8:13; and confidential network infrastructure 7 25:18). and security information. See ECF 8 No. 95-1 43. Public disclosure of this information could cause 9 competitive harm to Zazzle by harming its network security.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., EXHIBITS 11 Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 88, 95, 101
12 Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff”) administrative motion, filed in 13 connection with her pending Refiled Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), to consider 14 whether another party’s material should be sealed, ECF No. 88; (2) Defendant Zazzle, Inc.’s 15 (“Zazzle”) sealing statement regarding Plaintiff’s administrative motion, ECF No. 95; and (3) 16 Zazzle’s administrative motion to seal regarding an exhibit filed in support of its opposition to 17 Plaintiff’s MSJ, ECF No. 101. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable sealing 18 law, the Court GRANTS Zazzle’s requests to seal. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 25 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 26 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 27 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 1 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 2 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 3 Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such 4 ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 5 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 6 circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as sources of business 7 information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 8 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production 9 of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 10 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 11 “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will 12 not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 13 omitted). And although a protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect a 14 court’s previous determination that good cause—a lower threshold than that required for finding a 15 compelling reason to seal—exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179– 16 80, a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not 17 provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain 18 sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 19 party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, 20 or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 21 In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 22 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 23 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 24 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 25 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 26 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 confidential, i.e., information related to (1) Zazzle’s network infrastructure and security practices, 2 ECF No. 95, at 1, and (2) its internal financial and business strategies as revealed in certain pricing 3 terms and conditions, ECF No. 101, at 1. With regard to the former, Zazzle requests the Court 4 seal approximately two pages of deposition testimony and four lines in Plaintiff’s MSJ citing the 5 same deposition testimony on the basis that Zazzle’s network infrastructure and security practices 6 are “sensitive business information” that if disclosed publicly could put Zazzle at a competitive 7 business disadvantage or “jeopardize the security of Zazzle’s network.” Decl. of Liana Larson ¶ 8 4, ECF No. 95-1; see also ECF Nos 89, 89-47. As for the latter request, Zazzle requests the court 9 seal portions of one line of a licensing agreement under the heading “Payment and Taxes” on the 10 basis that public disclosure of its pricing terms and conditions would permit both future licensors 11 and Zazzle’s competitors access to Zazzle’s confidential business thinking and thereby harm 12 Zazzle’s competitive standing and ability to negotiate future agreements. Decl. of Patrick Haley ¶ 13 4, ECF No. 101-1; see also ECF No. 102-15. 14 The Court finds that Zazzle has established compelling reasons to seal information that 15 would reveal its network security information and internal business and financial decision-making 16 strategies. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling 17 reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); 18 Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 19 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss 20 Plaintiff's network infrastructure and security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 21 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons 22 may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product- 23 specific financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted). The 24 public interest in this information is limited where the content sought to be sealed is irrelevant to 25 the issues raised in the related MSJ. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (finding that the reason for 26 the higher standard for sealing documents related to dispositive motions is because “resolution of 27 a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of” the public interest so the public has less of a need to 1 Additionally, the Court finds Zazzle’s sealing requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no 2 || less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Zazzle’s sealing requests as set forth in the table below: 4 Public ECF No./ Document to be Result Reasoning (Sealed ECF No.) _ Sealed 5 89 / (88-1) Plaintiff's brief in GRANTED. | The portions of the document that support of her MSJ Zazzle seeks to seal cites to 6 (highlighted portions deposition testimony revealing at 2:6; 4:13; 8:13; and confidential network infrastructure 7 25:18). and security information. See ECF 8 No. 95-1 43. Public disclosure of this information could cause 9 competitive harm to Zazzle by harming its network security. See 10 id. 44. 89-47 / (88-4) Ex. 3 to Declaration of |GRANTED. | The portions of the document that Patrick Ryan in Zazzle seeks to seal constitutes 2 Support of Plaintiff's deposition testimony revealing MSJ (highlighted confidential network infrastructure portion at 164:15— and security information. See ECF 166:20). No. 95-1 43. Public disclosure of 14 this information could cause 5 competitive harm to Zazzle by harming its network security. See 16 id. 44. 102-15 / (101-4) Ex. | to Declaration of |GRANTED. | The line of the document that = 17 Patrick Haley in Zazzle seeks to seal contains Support of confidential information regarding 2 18 Defendants’ Zazzle’s pricing terms and 19 Opposition to conditions in a license agreement. Plaintiff's MSJ See ECF No. 101-1 93. Public 20 (highlighted portion at disclosure of this information p. 2,9 4). would reveal Zazzle’s internal 21 business and financial strategies and therefore harm Zazzle’s 22 position relative to its competitors 3 and future licensors. See id. 4 4. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2023 26 27 flinfedian ETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge