MiCamp Solutions, LLC v. Visa Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICAMP SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-06351-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL

10 VISA INC., Re: Dkt. No. 45 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Visa’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 45. 14 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 11 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 12 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 13 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 15 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 16 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 17 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 18 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 19 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 21 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 22 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Visa moves to seal Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Sharon D. Mayo (Dkt. No. 46-9), which 25 was filed in support of Visa’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 46. Because Exhibit 8 is attached to a 26 dispositive motion, the justification for sealing must meet the “compelling reasons” standard. 27 According to Visa, Exhibit 8 consists of “a package of documents submitted to Visa’s internal 1 Compliant Surcharging” containing “highly confidential, sensitive business information of Visa,” 2 || the disclosure of which “would reveal Visa’s internal deliberative processes for considering rules 3 violations and appeals therefrom.” Dkt. No. 45. 4 The Court finds that the exhibit that Visa seeks to seal contains Visa’s commercially 5 sensitive and confidential business information, which satisfies the compelling reasons standard 6 || and outweighs the public’s interest in viewing the documents. See Baird v. BlackRock 7 || Institutional Tr., N.A., 403 F.Supp.3d 765, 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[C]onfidential business 8 || information in the form of license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing 9 || negotiations, and business strategies satisfies the compelling reasons standard.”). The disclosure 10 || of this non-public business information “could reasonably place [Visa] at a competitive 11 disadvantage if disclosed.” See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 12 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing confidential business information 5 13 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); see 14 also Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. 3 15 Cal. June 30, 2015) (sealing “confidential product and business information which is not intended a 16 || for public disclosure”). Further, the third-party merchants, cardholders, and financial institutions 3 17 identified in the exhibit did not voluntarily contribute their business information to this litigation. 18 See United States v. Bazaarvoice, Inc., No. 13-CV-00133-WHO, 2014 WL 11297188, at *1 (N.D. 19 || Cal. Jan. 21, 2014). 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dkt. No. 45, Visa’s motion to seal Exhibit 8 to the Mayo 21 Declaration. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 3/28/2025 Abpurl & ML □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United States District Judge 27 28