Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 5, 2021
• Docket: 5:19-cv-06879
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 19-cv-06879-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, et al., [Re: ECF 150] 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal portions their brief 13 and exhibits submitted in support of their motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of 14 magistrate judge. Mot., ECF 150. Defendants request sealing because the materials contain 15 references to Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets. Mot. 1. The parties filed a joint stipulation in support 16 of Defendants’’ motion to seal. Stipulation, ECF 150-2. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ 17 motion is GRANTED. 18

19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 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 and County 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)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 24 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 25 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 26 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 27 1097. 1 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 2 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 3 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 4 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 5 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 6 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 7 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 8 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 9 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 10 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 11 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 12 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 13 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 14 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 15 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 16 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 17 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 18 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 19 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Documents containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in this 22 Circuit. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing exhibit 23 containing trade secrets and adopting definition of trade secret as “any formula, pattern, device or 24 compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 25 obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it”). The Court has reviewed 26 Defendants’ sealing motion and the declaration and joint stipulation submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the 27 1 rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below. 2 | [Bowe |Documentiobeseated |Rewt | Reasoning 150-5 Motion for Relief from | GRANTED as to the This highlighted portion of 4 Nondispositive Pretrial | portions of the document | the motion quotes the 5 Order of Magistrate highlighted at: 2:7 contents of a previously filed Judge trade secrets disclosure and 6 thus should be confidential. Melius Decl. {| 6-7. 7 150-6 Ex. 2 GRANTED as to the This document contains g entire exhibit alleged trade secrets and thus should be confidential. 9 Decl. of Niels J. Melius (“Melius Decl.”) □ 7, ECF 10 150-1. 150-7 Ex. 5 GRANTED as to the This document contains 11 entire exhibit alleged trade secrets and 2 thus should be confidential. Melius Decl. 7. & 13 150-8 Ex. 8 GRANTED as to the This document contains entire exhibit alleged trade secrets and 14 thus should be confidential. Melius Decl. {| 7. 615 16 Il. ORDER = 17 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motion to Z 18 file under seal portions of the brief and exhibits submitted in support of the motion for relief from 19 nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: March 5, 2021 24 kom Ly men) 25 BETHLABSON FREEMAN □□□ United States District Judge 27 28