Ocampo v. HeiTech Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 20, 2020
• Docket: 4:19-cv-04176
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HENRY OCAMPO, Case No. 19-cv-04176-KAW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 9 v. FILE UNDER SEAL

10 HEITECH SERVICES, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 40, 42 11 Defendant.

12 13 On July 2, 2020, Defendant Heitech Services, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment. 14 (Dkt. No. 39.) Defendant also filed a motion to file two exhibits under seal: (1) a copy of the 15 signature pages to the Subcontract Agreement Modification 009, and (2) a copy of the full 16 Subcontract Agreement Modification. (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) Defendant asserts that the documents 17 contain trade secrets and are contracts that are not publicly available. On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff 18 Henry Ocampo filed a motion to file under seal the same contract and deposition testimony related 19 to the contract. (Dkt. No. 42.) 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a 24 strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The 25 burden is therefore on the party seeking to seal a judicial record to “overcom[e] this strong 26 presumption by meeting the 'compelling reasons' standard. That is, the party must articulate 27 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 1 omitted). ‘“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and 2 || justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper 3 purposes, sch as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 4 libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Jd. at 1179. 5 Here, the parties’ request to seal an entire contract is overbroad. While certain terms in the 6 || contract may be trade secret, it does not appear the entire contract is trade secret; for example, the 7 legislative mandate of the Office of Minority Health, the hours of operation of an office, and the 8 || requirement of compliance with accessibility standards would not be matters of trade secret.! 9 Indeed, Defendant describes several of the terms in the motion for summary judgment, which is 10 || not under seal. (E.g., Dkt. No. 39 at 14 (describing revisions to the contract that purportedly 11 eliminated Plaintiff’s job duties).) This suggests that such information does not involve trade 12 secrets. 5 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ motions to file under seal. The parties may 14 || file a renewed motion to file the exhibits under seal within two weeks of the date of this order. 15 The renewed motion must be narrowly tailored to information that is sealable and must explain 16 || why the information constitutes trade secrets. IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: July 20, 2020 Toh. 19 cake Madde 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27