Mewawalla v. Middleman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAHUL MEWAWALLA, Case No. 21-cv-09700-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 STANLEY C. MIDDLEMAN, et al., 11 Defendants. Docket Nos. 187, 188, 189

12 13 The parties had filed several administrative motions to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 14 131, 132, 135, and 137. The Court ordered the parties to re-file their administrative motions to file 15 under seal, narrowing and clarifying their requests pursuant to L.R. 79-5 and Kamakana v. City & 16 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). See Docket No. 186. 17 The Court grants several of the parties’ requests to file documents under seal. The Court 18 does so without prejudice as to how these documents will be handled if this case proceeds to trial. 19 Redactions must be “narrowly tailored.” L.R. 79-5(a). The parties should be on-notice that, for 20 dispositive motions, such as Motions for Summary Judgment, a party seeking to seal a document 21 “must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” to warrant redacting. 22 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). 23 “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any 24 specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. Notwithstanding 25 the Court’s serious doubts about whether some of these documents warrant sealing, the Court 26 orders sealing in the interim as set forth below: Document Identification of Portions to be Granted/Denied 27 Sealed for Summary Judgement No. 132) remain under seal for now) 1 Defendant’s Partial Motion 3:3-21 Deny 2 for Summary Judgement 6:18-24 7:9-12 3 8:4-5 8:22-9:1. 4 14:26-27. 15:9-10 5 20:10-12. 6 21:6-7 24-18:21 7 24:25-28 Ex. FF to Docket No. 131 Xpanse’s valuation of income Grant 8 on page 14 (the dollar figure in the final line of paragraph 9 45), 15 (the dollar figure in 10 the first line of paragraph 47), and 17 (all dollar figures in 11 paragraph 53). Ex. F to Docket No. 131 In its entirety. Grant 12 Ex. CC to Docket No. 132 10:12 Grant 13 Ex. DD to Docket No. 132 Redact the specific figures Grant listed in the email related to 14 “Xpanse 2021 Net Income,” “Revenue from Freedom 15 orders currently on Keystone,” “Licensing Fees,” 16 and “Adjusted Net Income.” 17 Ex. II to Docket No. 132 In its entirety. Grant Ex. U to Docket No. 132 In its entirety. Grant 18 MSJ Opp. Ex. 31 to Docket Redact the specific figures Grant No. 137 listed related to Xpanse 2021 19 Net Income, Revenue from 20 Freedom orders currently on Keystone, Licensing Fees, and 21 Adjusted Net Income

22 MSJ Opp. Ex. 50 Redact the “conclusion” Grant section to the extent it 23 provides a specific estimate 24 value of Xpanse MSJ Opp. Ex. 21 In its entirety. Grant 25 MSJ Opp. Ex 31 In its entirety. Grant MSJ Opp. Ex 33 Redacted portions as shown in Grant 26 Docket No. 137. 27 MSJ Opp. 44 In its entirety. Grant MSJ Opp. 49 In its entirety. Grant |] LMSJ Opp. 51 MSJ Opp. 52 2 || Opp. 8-12 MSJ Opp. 14-18 3 |] | MSJ Opp. 19 || LMS! Opp. 20 5 The parties agreed to unseal several exhibits. Pursuant to the parties stipulation, the

6 following documents shall be publicly filed. For Docket No. 131, the parties agreed to publicly 7 file: Exs. AA and A. For Docket No. 132, the parties agreed to publicly file: Exs. JJ, PP, and T.

3 See Docket No. 187. For Docket No. 137, the parties agreed to publicly file: MSJ Oppn Exs: 37,

9 38, 43, and 47. See Docket No. 192 at 2.

10 For Docket No. 131, the parties eliminated pages that are not cited or relied on in several

exhibits and then agreed to file those exhibits publicly. The Court agrees and thus grants. For

D Docket No. 131, those exhibits are: Exs. O, B, and S. See Docket Nos. 131, 188. For Docket No.

132, the exhibit is: Ex. EE.

4 The parties have agreed the declaration of Mr. Mewawalla in support of plaintiffs S 5 opposition to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment be redacted with respect to oO 16 Xpanse’s valuation. See Docket No. 191. The Court agrees and thus grants.

The parties shall file publicly redacted versions of these documents, consistent with the

8 Court’s rulings above, within three court days. 19 50 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 131, 132, 135, 137, 187, 188, and 189.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: June 25, 2024 24 25 26 EDWARD M. CHEN 7 United States District Judge 28