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, OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, RELATED TO ABRAMOWITZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11 Defendant. JUDGMENT 12 [Re: ECF No. 311, 318, 319, 327]
14 15 Before the Court are four administrative motions to file under seal from both Palantir and 16 Abramowitz regarding materials filed in connection with Abramowitz’s motion for summary 17 judgment. See ECF Nos. 311, 318, 319, 327. The Court has considered the motions and 18 supporting declarations and statements. For the following reasons, the motions to seal Palantir’s 19 materials are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the motion to seal 20 Abramowitz’s materials is DENIED. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 23 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 24 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 25 case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto 26 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 27 1 1097. 2 Motions to seal in this district come in two types. First is an administrative motion to seal 3 information that the filing party believes should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For that motion, 4 the filing party must concurrently file (1) a supporting statement explaining the legal standard and 5 reasons for keeping the information under seal, (2) evidentiary support from declarations where 6 necessary, and (3) a proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” 7 and accompanied by a table listing the information sought to be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)– 8 (3). The second type of sealing motion is an administrative motion to consider whether another 9 party’s material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). For that motion, the filing party 10 provisionally files under seal material that the opposing party has designated as confidential. Id. 11 Within seven days of the filing of that motion, the opposing party must file the statement and/or 12 declaration described above that justifies sealing all or part of the information. Id. R. 79-5(f)(3). 13 Failure by the opposing party to timely file the statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 14 of the provisionally sealed information without further notice. Id. If a party’s filing contains 15 material covered by both Civ. L.R. 79-5(c) and 79-5(f), a party must file separate motions 16 pursuant to those Rules, with each party bearing its own burden with respect to the portions it 17 seeks to seal. Id. R. 79-5(f)(5). 18 II. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PALANTIR’S INFORMATION 19 Three of the four motions concern whether Palantir’s information should be filed under 20 seal. See ECF Nos. 311, 318, 327. Two of those motions are filed by Abramowitz pursuant to 21 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), see ECF Nos. 311, 327, to which Palantir has filed responsive statements 22 that significantly narrow the material sought to be sealed, see ECF Nos. 315, 330. One of those 23 motions is filed by Palantir pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). See ECF No. 318. 24 The material that Palantir seeks to seal broadly falls into three categories: (1) Palantir’s 25 confidential trade secret information; (2) Palantir’s confidential work for third-party clients; and 26 (3) information about a third-party’s investments and income. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 315 at 2–3, 318 27 at 2. The Court has previously sealed the first two types of materials in this case. See ECF Nos. 1 Palantir’s third-party clients); ECF No. 314 (sealing both). As to information about the third- 2 party’s investments and income, there are compelling reasons to seal this information because it 3 threatens that third party’s privacy and competitive interests. See Nichols v. AARP, Inc., 2021 WL 4 1091517, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2007 WL 5 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007). The Court further finds that Palantir has appropriately 6 narrowed the portions of documents Abramowitz filed provisionally under seal due to Palantir’s 7 confidentiality designations, and that the limited portions Palantir now seeks to keep under seal are 8 narrowly tailored. The Court will thus seal the materials that Palantir seeks to seal. 9 Accordingly, the administrative motions to seal Palantir’s information (ECF Nos. 311, 318, 10 327) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The following documents and portions 11 of documents SHALL be sealed: ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 12 311-5 Excerpts from February 9, Tr.11:9, Tr.43:7. 13 Exhibit 2 2022 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Alexander 14 Karp 311-6 Excerpts from October 28, Tr.68:3-4, 7, 10, 13, 23-24 15 Exhibit 7 2021 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Kevin 16 Kawasaki 17 311-7 Plaintiff Palantir p.5, l. 16-21. Exhibit 10 Technologies Inc.’s 18 Responses and Objections to Defendant KT4 Partners 19 LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories 20 311-8 Excerpts from February 4, Tr.12:5; Tr.27:4-6, 19; Tr.28:9, 12, 25; Tr.29:10- Exhibit 13 2022 Videotaped Remote 13; Tr.30:11, 18, 24-25; Tr.31:1-3, 5-7; Tr.44:10- 21 Deposition of Lauren 11, 16, 24-25; Tr.47:20-21; Tr.48:5; Tr.49:1; DeMeuse Tr.53:11-12, 25; Tr.54:1; Tr.56:20-21 22 311-9 Excerpts from December 20, Tr.17:22; Tr.19:25; Tr.20:4, 12; Tr.21:5,18; 23 Exhibit 14 2021 Videotaped Remote Tr.22:3 Deposition of Casey 24 Ketterling 25 311-12 Excerpts from August 6, Tr.190:10 Exhibit 15 2021 Videotaped Remote 26 Deposition of Lauren DeMeuse 27 311-14 Excerpts from October 15, Tr.23:9-11 Exhibit 17 2021 Videotaped Remote ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 1 311-17 Excerpts from February 23, Tr.8:23; Tr.9:5. 2 Exhibit 31 2022 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Laura 3 Personick 311-20 September 22, 2021 Video Tr. 20:3-9; 21:7, 9, 21; 24:11-12, 18, 23 4 Exhibit 34 Deposition Testimony of Alexander Fishman 5 311-26 Email Communication Portions at PALANTIR_CA_00000926 6 Exhibit 45 August 19, 2014 PALANTIR_CA00000926- 7 927 317 February 9, 2022 Remote Highlighted material at Tr.43:7; Tr.57:12-13, 19; 8 Exhibit 1 Videotaped Deposition (CA) Tr.83:23; Tr.84:1-3, 6-7, 20-21; Tr.87:24; Tr. of Alexander Karp 120:18; Tr. 137:7, 12, 13, 18; Tr.139:14 9 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003416 10 Exhibit 3 MLA_CA_00003416 11 317 Plaintiff Palantir Highlighted material at p.4, l.1, 3; p. 9, l.9; p.11, Exhibit 4 Technologies Inc.’s l.6, 9, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24; p.21, l.20-21; p.22 12 Responses and Objections to l.6, 15, 24, 28; p.23 l.16, 20, 27; p.24 l.9, 13 Defendant’s Fourth Set of 13 Interrogatories 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003152 14 Exhibit 8 MLA_CA_00003152 15 317 February 4, 2022 Remote Highlighted material at Tr.27:4-6, 19; Tr.29:10- Exhibit 13 Videotaped Deposition (CA) 13; Tr.30:11; Tr. 31:1-7, 11; Tr.35:3; Tr,36:15-16, 16 of Lauren DeMeuse 22; Tr.37:19-21; Tr.38:1, 6; Tr.111:18, 25; Tr.112:4-5, 11, 13, 21; 115:6-7, 10-11, 14, 16, 18, 17 21 317 December 2, 2021 Remote Highlighted material at 17:22; Tr.21:5, 18; Tr.22:3 18 Exhibit 14 Videotaped Deposition of Casey Ketterling 19 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003009 20 Exhibit 23 MLA_CA_00003009 317 August 14, 2020 Remote Highlighted material at Tr. 131:8.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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, OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, RELATED TO ABRAMOWITZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11 Defendant. JUDGMENT 12 [Re: ECF No. 311, 318, 319, 327]
14 15 Before the Court are four administrative motions to file under seal from both Palantir and 16 Abramowitz regarding materials filed in connection with Abramowitz’s motion for summary 17 judgment. See ECF Nos. 311, 318, 319, 327. The Court has considered the motions and 18 supporting declarations and statements. For the following reasons, the motions to seal Palantir’s 19 materials are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and the motion to seal 20 Abramowitz’s materials is DENIED. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 23 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 24 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 25 case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto 26 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 27 1 1097. 2 Motions to seal in this district come in two types. First is an administrative motion to seal 3 information that the filing party believes should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For that motion, 4 the filing party must concurrently file (1) a supporting statement explaining the legal standard and 5 reasons for keeping the information under seal, (2) evidentiary support from declarations where 6 necessary, and (3) a proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” 7 and accompanied by a table listing the information sought to be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)– 8 (3). The second type of sealing motion is an administrative motion to consider whether another 9 party’s material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). For that motion, the filing party 10 provisionally files under seal material that the opposing party has designated as confidential. Id. 11 Within seven days of the filing of that motion, the opposing party must file the statement and/or 12 declaration described above that justifies sealing all or part of the information. Id. R. 79-5(f)(3). 13 Failure by the opposing party to timely file the statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 14 of the provisionally sealed information without further notice. Id. If a party’s filing contains 15 material covered by both Civ. L.R. 79-5(c) and 79-5(f), a party must file separate motions 16 pursuant to those Rules, with each party bearing its own burden with respect to the portions it 17 seeks to seal. Id. R. 79-5(f)(5). 18 II. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PALANTIR’S INFORMATION 19 Three of the four motions concern whether Palantir’s information should be filed under 20 seal. See ECF Nos. 311, 318, 327. Two of those motions are filed by Abramowitz pursuant to 21 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), see ECF Nos. 311, 327, to which Palantir has filed responsive statements 22 that significantly narrow the material sought to be sealed, see ECF Nos. 315, 330. One of those 23 motions is filed by Palantir pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). See ECF No. 318. 24 The material that Palantir seeks to seal broadly falls into three categories: (1) Palantir’s 25 confidential trade secret information; (2) Palantir’s confidential work for third-party clients; and 26 (3) information about a third-party’s investments and income. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 315 at 2–3, 318 27 at 2. The Court has previously sealed the first two types of materials in this case. See ECF Nos. 1 Palantir’s third-party clients); ECF No. 314 (sealing both). As to information about the third- 2 party’s investments and income, there are compelling reasons to seal this information because it 3 threatens that third party’s privacy and competitive interests. See Nichols v. AARP, Inc., 2021 WL 4 1091517, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2007 WL 5 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007). The Court further finds that Palantir has appropriately 6 narrowed the portions of documents Abramowitz filed provisionally under seal due to Palantir’s 7 confidentiality designations, and that the limited portions Palantir now seeks to keep under seal are 8 narrowly tailored. The Court will thus seal the materials that Palantir seeks to seal. 9 Accordingly, the administrative motions to seal Palantir’s information (ECF Nos. 311, 318, 10 327) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The following documents and portions 11 of documents SHALL be sealed: ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 12 311-5 Excerpts from February 9, Tr.11:9, Tr.43:7. 13 Exhibit 2 2022 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Alexander 14 Karp 311-6 Excerpts from October 28, Tr.68:3-4, 7, 10, 13, 23-24 15 Exhibit 7 2021 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Kevin 16 Kawasaki 17 311-7 Plaintiff Palantir p.5, l. 16-21. Exhibit 10 Technologies Inc.’s 18 Responses and Objections to Defendant KT4 Partners 19 LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories 20 311-8 Excerpts from February 4, Tr.12:5; Tr.27:4-6, 19; Tr.28:9, 12, 25; Tr.29:10- Exhibit 13 2022 Videotaped Remote 13; Tr.30:11, 18, 24-25; Tr.31:1-3, 5-7; Tr.44:10- 21 Deposition of Lauren 11, 16, 24-25; Tr.47:20-21; Tr.48:5; Tr.49:1; DeMeuse Tr.53:11-12, 25; Tr.54:1; Tr.56:20-21 22 311-9 Excerpts from December 20, Tr.17:22; Tr.19:25; Tr.20:4, 12; Tr.21:5,18; 23 Exhibit 14 2021 Videotaped Remote Tr.22:3 Deposition of Casey 24 Ketterling 25 311-12 Excerpts from August 6, Tr.190:10 Exhibit 15 2021 Videotaped Remote 26 Deposition of Lauren DeMeuse 27 311-14 Excerpts from October 15, Tr.23:9-11 Exhibit 17 2021 Videotaped Remote ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 1 311-17 Excerpts from February 23, Tr.8:23; Tr.9:5. 2 Exhibit 31 2022 Videotaped Remote Deposition of Laura 3 Personick 311-20 September 22, 2021 Video Tr. 20:3-9; 21:7, 9, 21; 24:11-12, 18, 23 4 Exhibit 34 Deposition Testimony of Alexander Fishman 5 311-26 Email Communication Portions at PALANTIR_CA_00000926 6 Exhibit 45 August 19, 2014 PALANTIR_CA00000926- 7 927 317 February 9, 2022 Remote Highlighted material at Tr.43:7; Tr.57:12-13, 19; 8 Exhibit 1 Videotaped Deposition (CA) Tr.83:23; Tr.84:1-3, 6-7, 20-21; Tr.87:24; Tr. of Alexander Karp 120:18; Tr. 137:7, 12, 13, 18; Tr.139:14 9 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003416 10 Exhibit 3 MLA_CA_00003416 11 317 Plaintiff Palantir Highlighted material at p.4, l.1, 3; p. 9, l.9; p.11, Exhibit 4 Technologies Inc.’s l.6, 9, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24; p.21, l.20-21; p.22 12 Responses and Objections to l.6, 15, 24, 28; p.23 l.16, 20, 27; p.24 l.9, 13 Defendant’s Fourth Set of 13 Interrogatories 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003152 14 Exhibit 8 MLA_CA_00003152 15 317 February 4, 2022 Remote Highlighted material at Tr.27:4-6, 19; Tr.29:10- Exhibit 13 Videotaped Deposition (CA) 13; Tr.30:11; Tr. 31:1-7, 11; Tr.35:3; Tr,36:15-16, 16 of Lauren DeMeuse 22; Tr.37:19-21; Tr.38:1, 6; Tr.111:18, 25; Tr.112:4-5, 11, 13, 21; 115:6-7, 10-11, 14, 16, 18, 17 21 317 December 2, 2021 Remote Highlighted material at 17:22; Tr.21:5, 18; Tr.22:3 18 Exhibit 14 Videotaped Deposition of Casey Ketterling 19 317 Email Communication Highlighted material at MLA_CA_00003009 20 Exhibit 23 MLA_CA_00003009 317 August 14, 2020 Remote Highlighted material at Tr. 131:8. 21 Exhibit 24 Videotaped Deposition (DE) of Shyam Sankar 22 317 October 28, 2021 Remote Highlighted material at Tr. 112:7-15 23 Exhibit 34 Videotaped Deposition (CA) of Kevin Kawasaki 24 317 Palantir’s Brief in Pages 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 23 Exhibit 63 Opposition to Defendant’s 25 Motion for Summary Judgment 26 327-3 Excerpts from February 9, Tr. at 11:9; Tr. at 57:12-13; Tr. at 57:19; Tr. at 27 Exhibit 3 2022 Videotaped Remote 87:24 Deposition of Alexander 327-5 Plaintiff Palantir Page 8 at Lines 12, 22, 26, and 27; Page 9 at Lines 2 Exhibit 5 | Technologies Inc.’s Sixth 3 and 7 Amended Responses and 3 Objections to Defendant Mare Abramowitz’s First 4 Set of Interrogatories 5 No later than 14 days following this Order, Palantir SHALL file public, redacted 6 versions of the above documents in accordance with this Order. Palantir SHALL file public, 7 || unredacted versions of documents for which it did not seek sealing of any material. No chambers 8 copies of these documents are required. 9 II. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL ABRAMOWITZ’S INFORMATION 10 One of the four motions concerns whether Abramowitz’s information should be filed under 11 seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF No. 319. Abramowitz has filed a responsive «= 12 || statement to Palantir’s motion that states that he does not seek to have any of the designated
13 || materials remain under seal. See ECF No. 326. In light of Abramowitz’s statement, the motion to
14 | seal Abramowitz’s designated materials is DENIED.
15 No later than 14 days following this Order, Palantir SHALL file public, unredacted G16 || versions of documents containing Abramowitz’s designated information that he does not seek to
= 17 maintain under seal. No chambers copies of these documents are required.
4 18 || Iv. ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ sealing motions are 20 || GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART according to the rulings in Sections II and III. 21 Palantir SHALL file new versions of those documents as outlined in those sections. Chambers 22 || copies of these documents are not required. 23 24 || Dated: July 15, 2022 han en 25 flr M BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28