Pinnacle Ventures LLC v. Bertelsmann Education Services

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-03412
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PINNACLE VENTURES LLC, et al., Case No. 18-cv-03412-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING 9 v. PARTIES’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 BERTELSMANN EDUCATION SERVICES, [Re: ECF 83, 88, 91, 94] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court are several unopposed administrative motions to file under seal 14 documents relating to (1) Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims; (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to 15 Dismiss and Special Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaims; (3) Defendants’ Opposition; 16 and (4) Plaintiffs’ Reply. 17 The motions are GRANTED for the reasons discussed below. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 23 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 24 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 25 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 26 1097. 27 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 1 must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 2 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 3 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 4 sealable.” Id. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 Because the parties’ sealing motions relate to Defendant’s pleading and the briefing on 7 Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and strike that pleading, the sealing motions are more than 8 tangentially related to the merits of the case. Thus, the compelling reasons standard applies. 9 Having reviewed the parties’ motions and supporting declarations, the Court concludes that the 10 parties’ have articulated compelling reasons to seal portions of the documents at issue and that the 11 proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing motions are set forth 12 below. 13 14 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning

15 83-4 Defendant’s Answer to First GRANTED as to the The proposed Amended Complaint and highlighted portions redacted portions 16 Counterclaims of paragraphs 1, 2, 6, describe or quote 8, 9, 11, 12, 24-27, business, financial, 17 29, 37, 39, 40, 48-50, and other information 52, 53, 94, 96, 98- regarding non-party 18 102, 104-109, 115, private company and 120. HotChalk, Inc., the 19 disclosure of which would cause 20 competitive harm to HotChalk. Moreno 21 Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 83-1.

22 88-4 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss GRANTED as to the The proposed and Special Motion to Strike highlighted portions redacted portions 23 Defendant’s Counterclaims of pages 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, contain sensitive, 11, and 12. non-public, and 24 confidential business and financial 25 information relating to Plaintiffs, 26 Defendant, and HotChalk, a privately 27 held company that is information could 1 cause competitive harm to Plaintiffs, 2 Defendant, and HotChalk if made 3 public. Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, ECF 88-1. 4 88-6 Exhibit A to Declaration of GRANTED as to The document is a 5 Brian Lutz in Support of entire document loan and security Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss agreement entered 6 and Special Motion to Strike into between Defendant’s Counterclaims Plaintiffs and 7 HotChalk. It contains sensitive, non-public, 8 and confidential business and financial 9 information relating to Plaintiffs and third- 10 party HotChalk. Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, ECF 88- 11 1.

12 88-8 Exhibit A to Declaration of GRANTED as to The document is a Brian Lutz in Support of entire document loan and security 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss agreement entered and Special Motion to Strike into between 14 Defendant’s Counterclaims Defendant and HotChalk. It contains 15 sensitive, non-public, and confidential 16 business and financial information relating 17 to Defendant and third-party HotChalk. 18 Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 2-8, ECF 88-1. 19 91-4 Defendant’s Opposition to GRANTED as to the The proposed 20 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss highlighted portions redacted portions and Special Motion to Strike describe sensitive 21 Counterclaims of pages 3, 4-6, 12, business, financial, 14, 16, 18-19, and 21. and other information 22 related to non-party private company 23 HotChalk and/or Defendant, that if 24 disclosed would harm HotChalk’s 25 competitive standing in the market and 26 Defendant’s leverage to negotiated future 27 financing. Moreno 1 94-4 Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ | GRANTED as tothe | The proposed Motion to Dismiss and Special | highlighted portions redacted portions 2 Motion to Strike Defendant’s of pages 8 and 11. contain sensitive, Counterclaims non-public, and 3 confidential business and financial 4 information relating to Plaintiffs, 5 Defendant, and HotChalk, Inc., a 6 privately held company that is not a 7 party to this action. This information 8 could cause competitive harm to 9 Plaintiffs, Defendant, and HotChalk if made 10 public. Lutz Decl. □□ 2-5, ECF 94-1. 11 12

Il. ORDER

14 The parties’ sealing motions filed at ECF 83, 88, 91, and 94 are GRANTED. The parties

15 have filed redacted versions of the documents in question. No further action is required. 16

= 17 Dated: December 10, 2019 han tn)

18 thy L M. BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28