Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc.

S.D. California

Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc.

DecidedMarch 19, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00194

StatusUnknown

This text of Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc. (Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIFTY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a New Case No.: 24-CV-194 JLS (AHG) York corporation, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER MANGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 15 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION Delaware corporation, d/b/a CLICKUP, TO DISMISS (ECF No. 35), 16 Defendant. 17 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER 18 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS 19 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 40), 20 AND 21 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 22 APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER 23 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 24 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 44) 25 26 Presently before the Court are Defendant Mango Technologies, Inc. d/b/a ClickUp’s 27 (“ClickUp”) Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 28 First Amended Complaint (“MTD Appl.,” ECF No. 35), Plaintiff Nifty Technologies, 1 Inc.’s (“Nifty”) Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Opposition to Defendant’s 2 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Opp’n Appl.,” ECF No. 40), and 3 ClickUp’s Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Reply Brief in Support of its 4 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Reply Appl.,” ECF No. 44). 5 On October 8, 2024, Nifty filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 26), 6 to which it included as attachments seven supporting exhibits. See ECF No. 26-1 to 26-7. 7 Nifty attached as Exhibit B detailed descriptions of its purported trade secrets that it alleges 8 were misappropriated by ClickUp. ECF No. 26-2. Because of its sensitive nature, Nifty 9 requested to file Exhibit B under seal, ECF No. 27, and the Court granted that request on 10 November 8, 2024, ECF No. 33. Exhibit B is now sealed on the docket in its entirety. ECF 11 No. 34. 12 On December 13, 2024, ClickUp moved to dismiss Nifty’s FAC, ECF No. 37, and 13 that Motion is now fully briefed. Embedded in the Parties’ briefing on the Motion are 14 quotes from the sealed Exhibit and passages that discuss the sealed content in detail. See 15 ECF MTD Appl. at 1. To maintain the integrity of Exhibit B, the Parties both request to 16 seal selected portions of their briefing on ClickUp’s pending Motion to Dismiss. 17 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 18 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 19 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 20 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 21 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 22 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 23 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 24 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 25 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 26 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 27 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 28 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 1 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 2 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 3 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 4 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 5 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 6 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Briefing on a 7 motion to dismiss is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and is thus 8 subject to the “compelling reasons” standard. Pinnacle Ventures, LLC v. Bertelsmann 9 Educ. Servs., No. 18-cv-03412-BLF, 2019 WL 13126128, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2019). 10 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 11 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 12 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 13 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 14 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 15 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 16 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 17 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 18 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 19 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 20 Here, the Parties’ Applications seek to seal portions of their respective briefs on 21 ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss that pull excerpts from or describe in detail certain elements 22 of Nifty’s purported trade secrets. As the Court held once before, “‘materials that could 23 result in infringement upon trade secrets’ [are] precisely the sort of material that may 24 overcome the ‘strong presumption in favor of access when deciding whether to seal 25 records.” ECF No. 33 at 3 (quoting Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 26 (9th Cir. 2011)); see also Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604–05 27 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“‘[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 28 competitive standing’ often warrant protection under seal.” (alteration in original) (quoting 1 || Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598)). Where a Court has previously sealed a particular document in 2 || the course of litigation and sees no reason to depart from that conclusion, it may again grant 3 ||a request to seal material extracted from that document. See HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. v. 4 ||Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., 2023 WL 1768120, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (citing 5 || Synchronos Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-cv-0119-HSG, 2020 WL 759528, at *5 6 || (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2020)). The Court, here, sees no reason to depart from its conclusion 7 || that the sensitive nature of Exhibit B satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. 8 Accordingly, ClickUp’s Applications to Seal (ECF Nos. 35, 44) and Nifty’s 9 || Application to Seal (ECF No. 40) are GRANTED as to the highlighted portions contained 10 11 1. ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36): 6 n.6, 8:3, 8:9-10, 8:19-21, 12 8:27—28, 9:23-26, 10:89, 10:11—12, 12:19-21, 13:21-25; 13 2. Nifty’s Opposition to ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41): 7:8-11, 14 7:12-15, 8:12—22, 16:4—5; and 15 3. ClickUp’s Reply (ECF No. 45): 5:9, 5:14—-15. 16 The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE the lodged unredacted copies of ClickUp’s 17 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36), Nifty’s Opposition to ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18 || No. 41), and ClickUp’s Reply (ECF No. 45) under seal. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 19, 2025 jae LL. Li moma 21 on. Janis L. Sammartino 79 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NIFTY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a New Case No.: 24-CV-194 JLS (AHG) York corporation, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER MANGO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 15 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION Delaware corporation, d/b/a CLICKUP, TO DISMISS (ECF No. 35), 16 Defendant. 17 (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER 18 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS 19 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 40), 20 AND 21 (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 22 APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER 23 SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 24 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 44) 25 26 Presently before the Court are Defendant Mango Technologies, Inc. d/b/a ClickUp’s 27 (“ClickUp”) Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 28 First Amended Complaint (“MTD Appl.,” ECF No. 35), Plaintiff Nifty Technologies, 1 Inc.’s (“Nifty”) Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Opposition to Defendant’s 2 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Opp’n Appl.,” ECF No. 40), and 3 ClickUp’s Application to File Under Seal Portions of its Reply Brief in Support of its 4 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Reply Appl.,” ECF No. 44). 5 On October 8, 2024, Nifty filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC,” ECF No. 26), 6 to which it included as attachments seven supporting exhibits. See ECF No. 26-1 to 26-7. 7 Nifty attached as Exhibit B detailed descriptions of its purported trade secrets that it alleges 8 were misappropriated by ClickUp. ECF No. 26-2. Because of its sensitive nature, Nifty 9 requested to file Exhibit B under seal, ECF No. 27, and the Court granted that request on 10 November 8, 2024, ECF No. 33. Exhibit B is now sealed on the docket in its entirety. ECF 11 No. 34. 12 On December 13, 2024, ClickUp moved to dismiss Nifty’s FAC, ECF No. 37, and 13 that Motion is now fully briefed. Embedded in the Parties’ briefing on the Motion are 14 quotes from the sealed Exhibit and passages that discuss the sealed content in detail. See 15 ECF MTD Appl. at 1. To maintain the integrity of Exhibit B, the Parties both request to 16 seal selected portions of their briefing on ClickUp’s pending Motion to Dismiss. 17 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 18 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 19 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 20 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 21 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 22 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 23 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 24 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 25 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 26 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 27 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 28 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 1 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 2 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 3 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 4 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 5 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 6 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Briefing on a 7 motion to dismiss is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and is thus 8 subject to the “compelling reasons” standard. Pinnacle Ventures, LLC v. Bertelsmann 9 Educ. Servs., No. 18-cv-03412-BLF, 2019 WL 13126128, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2019). 10 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 11 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 12 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 13 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 14 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 15 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 16 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 17 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 18 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 19 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 20 Here, the Parties’ Applications seek to seal portions of their respective briefs on 21 ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss that pull excerpts from or describe in detail certain elements 22 of Nifty’s purported trade secrets. As the Court held once before, “‘materials that could 23 result in infringement upon trade secrets’ [are] precisely the sort of material that may 24 overcome the ‘strong presumption in favor of access when deciding whether to seal 25 records.” ECF No. 33 at 3 (quoting Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 26 (9th Cir. 2011)); see also Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604–05 27 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“‘[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 28 competitive standing’ often warrant protection under seal.” (alteration in original) (quoting 1 || Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598)). Where a Court has previously sealed a particular document in 2 || the course of litigation and sees no reason to depart from that conclusion, it may again grant 3 ||a request to seal material extracted from that document. See HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. v. 4 ||Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., 2023 WL 1768120, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (citing 5 || Synchronos Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-cv-0119-HSG, 2020 WL 759528, at *5 6 || (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2020)). The Court, here, sees no reason to depart from its conclusion 7 || that the sensitive nature of Exhibit B satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. 8 Accordingly, ClickUp’s Applications to Seal (ECF Nos. 35, 44) and Nifty’s 9 || Application to Seal (ECF No. 40) are GRANTED as to the highlighted portions contained 10 11 1. ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36): 6 n.6, 8:3, 8:9-10, 8:19-21, 12 8:27—28, 9:23-26, 10:89, 10:11—12, 12:19-21, 13:21-25; 13 2. Nifty’s Opposition to ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41): 7:8-11, 14 7:12-15, 8:12—22, 16:4—5; and 15 3. ClickUp’s Reply (ECF No. 45): 5:9, 5:14—-15. 16 The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE the lodged unredacted copies of ClickUp’s 17 || Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36), Nifty’s Opposition to ClickUp’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18 || No. 41), and ClickUp’s Reply (ECF No. 45) under seal. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: March 19, 2025 jae LL. Li moma 21 on. Janis L. Sammartino 79 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Williams v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

290 F.R.D. 600 (E.D. California, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nifty Technologies, Inc. v. Mango Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nifty-technologies-inc-v-mango-technologies-inc-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack