1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04844-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 309] 11 Defendants.
12 Before the Court is Defendants Zazzle Inc. (“Zazzle”) and Mohamed Alkhatib’s 13 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (collectively, “Defendants”), filed in connection with 14 their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate 15 Judge (Dkt. No. 288). ECF No. 309. Plaintiff did not submit any response to Defendants’ motion. 16 Having reviewed Defendants’ submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS 17 Defendants’ requests to seal. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 20 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 21 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & 22 n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of 23 access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 24 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more 25 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the 26 presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 27 policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1100–01 (9th 1 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 2 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 3 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 4 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, 5 or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations omitted)). 6 Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” 7 standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a “particularized 8 showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips 9 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated 11 reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 13 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document 14 under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant 15 sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative 16 to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 17 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79- 18 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. 19 L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Because the motion to seal pertains to a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order 22 of a magistrate judge, which is only tangentially related to the merits of this action, the Court will 23 apply the “good cause” standard. See, e.g., Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 22-CV-04486, 2023 WL 24 5520771, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) (noting that the good cause standard applies to discovery- 25 related motions); Malig as Tr. for Malig Fam. Tr. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19-CV-02690, 2022 WL 26 1143360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (applying the good cause standard to documents related 27 to a motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s discovery order); Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation 1 standard to a sealing motion pertaining to a discovery letter brief). 2 The material under consideration for sealing concerns information that Defendants have 3 deemed confidential, i.e., information related to (1) Zazzle’s design volumes, ECF 309-2 at 4; (2) 4 Zazzle’s database, electronic systems, and design volumes, ECF 309-3, Beaver Declaration at 2, 4; 5 (3) Zazzle’s designs, designers, users, and products, ECF 309-4, Nolan Declaration at 1; and (4) 6 technical operation of Zazzle’s Design Tool and Zazzle’s electronic systems, ECF 309-5, Jason Li 7 Deposition at 122. With respect to the first three requests, Defendants request the Court to seal 8 selected words and phrases in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from 9 Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge and its supporting declarations on the basis that 10 the portion contains confidential information whose public disclosure would harm Zazzle’s 11 competitive position. ECF 309-1, Larson Decl. at 2. With respect to the fourth request, Defendants 12 request the court to seal about 10 lines of Jason Li’s deposition, which was attached as an exhibit to 13 the Nolan Declaration, on the basis that the portion contains technical details regarding Defendants’ 14 proprietary Design Tool and the disclosure of this information to the public would harm Zazzle’s 15 competitive position. ECF 309-1 at 2. Defendants argue that disclosing the information contained 16 in these material “would harm Zazzle’s competitive position.” ECF 309 at 2. Defendants also argue 17 that “there is no less restrictive alternative for protecting such information from disclosure.” ECF 18 309 at 3. 19 The Court finds that Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal information that 20 would reveal confidential information about Zazzle’s database and proprietary electronic systems. See, 21 e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing 22 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); Music Grp. Macao Com. 23 Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a 24 compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss Plaintiff's network infrastructure and 25 security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 26 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 27 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 1 requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information 2 at issue. 3 III. ORDER 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS redactions as outlined in the below chart. The 5 Court directs Defendants to file a revised redacted version of the Amended Complaint that comports 6 with the Court’s order into the public record within 7 days from issuance of this order. See Civ. L.R. 7 79-5(f)(3). 8 ECF No. Document to be Result Ruling 9 Sealed 10 310/ Opposition to GRANTED. The portions of the documents (309-2) Motion for Relief.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04844-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 309] 11 Defendants.
12 Before the Court is Defendants Zazzle Inc. (“Zazzle”) and Mohamed Alkhatib’s 13 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (collectively, “Defendants”), filed in connection with 14 their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate 15 Judge (Dkt. No. 288). ECF No. 309. Plaintiff did not submit any response to Defendants’ motion. 16 Having reviewed Defendants’ submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS 17 Defendants’ requests to seal. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 20 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 21 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & 22 n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of 23 access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 24 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more 25 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the 26 presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 27 policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1100–01 (9th 1 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 2 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 3 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 4 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, 5 or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations omitted)). 6 Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” 7 standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a “particularized 8 showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips 9 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated 11 reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 12 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 13 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document 14 under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant 15 sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative 16 to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 17 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79- 18 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. 19 L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Because the motion to seal pertains to a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order 22 of a magistrate judge, which is only tangentially related to the merits of this action, the Court will 23 apply the “good cause” standard. See, e.g., Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 22-CV-04486, 2023 WL 24 5520771, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) (noting that the good cause standard applies to discovery- 25 related motions); Malig as Tr. for Malig Fam. Tr. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19-CV-02690, 2022 WL 26 1143360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (applying the good cause standard to documents related 27 to a motion for relief from a magistrate judge’s discovery order); Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation 1 standard to a sealing motion pertaining to a discovery letter brief). 2 The material under consideration for sealing concerns information that Defendants have 3 deemed confidential, i.e., information related to (1) Zazzle’s design volumes, ECF 309-2 at 4; (2) 4 Zazzle’s database, electronic systems, and design volumes, ECF 309-3, Beaver Declaration at 2, 4; 5 (3) Zazzle’s designs, designers, users, and products, ECF 309-4, Nolan Declaration at 1; and (4) 6 technical operation of Zazzle’s Design Tool and Zazzle’s electronic systems, ECF 309-5, Jason Li 7 Deposition at 122. With respect to the first three requests, Defendants request the Court to seal 8 selected words and phrases in Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from 9 Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge and its supporting declarations on the basis that 10 the portion contains confidential information whose public disclosure would harm Zazzle’s 11 competitive position. ECF 309-1, Larson Decl. at 2. With respect to the fourth request, Defendants 12 request the court to seal about 10 lines of Jason Li’s deposition, which was attached as an exhibit to 13 the Nolan Declaration, on the basis that the portion contains technical details regarding Defendants’ 14 proprietary Design Tool and the disclosure of this information to the public would harm Zazzle’s 15 competitive position. ECF 309-1 at 2. Defendants argue that disclosing the information contained 16 in these material “would harm Zazzle’s competitive position.” ECF 309 at 2. Defendants also argue 17 that “there is no less restrictive alternative for protecting such information from disclosure.” ECF 18 309 at 3. 19 The Court finds that Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal information that 20 would reveal confidential information about Zazzle’s database and proprietary electronic systems. See, 21 e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing 22 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); Music Grp. Macao Com. 23 Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a 24 compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss Plaintiff's network infrastructure and 25 security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 26 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 27 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 1 requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information 2 at issue. 3 III. ORDER 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS redactions as outlined in the below chart. The 5 Court directs Defendants to file a revised redacted version of the Amended Complaint that comports 6 with the Court’s order into the public record within 7 days from issuance of this order. See Civ. L.R. 7 79-5(f)(3). 8 ECF No. Document to be Result Ruling 9 Sealed 10 310/ Opposition to GRANTED. The portions of the documents (309-2) Motion for Relief. that Defendants seek to seal 11 (Redacted portions contains confidential information highlighted in yellow relating to Zazzle’s design 12 on page 4) volumes, public disclosure of which would harm Zazzle’s 13 competitive position. Larson Decl. 14 ¶¶ 3-4. 310-1/ Beaver Decl. GRANTED. The portions of the documents 15 (309-3) (Redacted portions that Defendants seek to seal highlighted in yellow contains confidential information 16 on pages 2-4). relating to Zazzle’s database, electronic systems, and design 17 volumes, public disclosure of 18 which would harm Zazzle’s competitive position. Larson 19 Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5. 300-2/ Nolan Decl. GRANTED. The portions of the documents 20 (309-4) (Redacted portions that Defendants seek to seal 21 highlighted in yellow contains confidential on page 1) information relating to the 22 volumes of Zazzle’s designs, designers, users, and products, 23 public disclosure of which would harm Zazzle’s 24 competitive position. Larson 25 Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6. 26 27 ECF No.| Document to be Result Ruling 1 Sealed 9 || (310-3/ — |Excerpts of Jason Li |] GRANTED. The portions of the documents (309-5) |Deposition that Defendants seek to seal 3 Transcript (Redacted contains confidential information portions on page elating to the technical operation 4 122) of Zazzle’s Design Tool and 5 Zazzle’s electronic systems, public disclosure of which would 6 harm Zazzle’s competitive position. Larson Decl. [¥ 3, 7. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: January 21, 2025
12 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 13
15 16
it
4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28