MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 9, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-08103
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 MASTEROBJECTS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-08103 WHA

12 v.

13 AMAZON.COM, INC, ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL 14 Defendant.

15 16 17 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 18 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 20 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 21 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 22 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the 23 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling 24 reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions such as motions in 25 limine and Daubert motions can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098– 26 1100. 27 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek 1 whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is sealable. Civ. 2 L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could result in 3 infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome [the] 4 strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for sealing. Apple Inc. 5 v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons may also warrant 6 sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” 7 especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information because it “is not 8 necessary to the public's understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 9 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 10 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 11 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 12 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague 13 boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with 14 particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal 15 standard.” Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 16 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 17 Upon review of the pertinent motions to seal and their accompanying declarations, this 18 order finds the parties have made the requisite showing to seal certain portions of the submitted 19 documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows: 20 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 21 121-3 Motion for Leave to GRANTED as Material requested to be sealed as 22 File First Amended to requested listed in the Anderson Declaration Complaint and material. (portions of Exhibit K and Exhibit 1 23 accompanying Otherwise to Exhibit K) contains sensitive documentation DENIED. confidential information regarding 24 Amazon’s source code, the public 25 disclosure of which would cause Amazon competitive harm (see Dkt. 26 No. 123). Should this information become more relevant in future 27 aspects of the proceedings, the I leading to a different decision on future sealing requests. 2 135-4 Second Amended GRANTED as Material requested to be sealed as Complaint to the listed in the Anderson Declaration 3 requested contains information allegedly 4 material: p. 28 constituting confidential agreements at In. 2; p.37 at | with third-parties, the public 5 In. 5-6; and p. disclosure of which would cause 37 at In. 14-15. | Amazon competitive harm (see Dkt. 6 Otherwise No. 137). Should this information DENIED. become more relevant in future 7 aspects of the proceedings, the g public interest may increase, perhaps leading to a different decision on 9 future sealing requests. 10 135-6 Exhibit K to Second GRANTED as Material requested to be sealed as Amended Complaint to the listed in the Anderson Declaration 11 requested contains sensitive confidential material: p.2 at | information regarding Amazon’s 12 In. 15 (ast source code, the public disclosure of B word only); p. which would cause Amazon = 2 atIn. 27; p.3 | competitive harm (see Dkt. No. at In. 6-8; p. 3 137). Should this information S at In. 19-24; p. become more relevant in future 15 4 at In. 10-15; aspects of the proceedings, the 2 p. 4 at In. 22- public interest may increase, perhaps a 16 26; and Exhibit | leading to a different decision on B 17 1. Otherwise future sealing requests. = DENIED. 18 19 Within TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS of the date of this order, the parties must, to the extent 20 needed, file documents in full compliance with this order. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 9, 2022. 24 Pee 25 {als _ SV ont ILLIAM ALSUP 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28