REFLEX MEDIA, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-06393-JD
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, et al., Defendants.
The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted) Defendants SuccessfulMatch.com and Successful Match Canada (Successful Match) and plaintiffs Clover8 Investments and Reflex Media, Inc. (RMI) have asked to seal a number of documents filed in connection with discovery disputes. Dkt. Nos. 54, 56, 70, 74. 1 Sealing is denied across the board. The Court’s specific sealing determinations are stated 2 in the attached chart. See Ex. A. For most of the sealing requests, no designating party filed a 3 statement in support of sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 4 For the other sealing requests, plaintiffs offered only perfunctory claims that the 5 documents at issue contain confidential information that should be shielded from public view. For 6 example, they say that certain documents contain information revealing RMI’s company structure, 7 operations, and profit and revenue. Dkt. No. 76 at 2-3. But plaintiffs fail to explain beyond 8 conclusory statements why they will suffer competitive harm if this information is disclosed. See, 9 e.g., id. (stating RMI’s confidential information “could be used by [RMI]’s competitors to gain an 10 unfair advantage against it”). “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example 11 do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are 12 insufficient for sealing.” DZ Reserve v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, 13 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 14 Consequently, the “‘default posture of public access prevails,’” and the sealing requests are 15 all denied. In re Google Play, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). a 16 || The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the documents by July 31, 2023. Civ. L.R. 17 79-509). 19 Dated: July 24, 2023 20 21 JAMES PONATO 22 United Yates District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
REFLEX MEDIA, INC., et al., Case No. 20-cv-06393-JD
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, et al., Defendants.
The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted) Defendants SuccessfulMatch.com and Successful Match Canada (Successful Match) and plaintiffs Clover8 Investments and Reflex Media, Inc. (RMI) have asked to seal a number of documents filed in connection with discovery disputes. Dkt. Nos. 54, 56, 70, 74. 1 Sealing is denied across the board. The Court’s specific sealing determinations are stated 2 in the attached chart. See Ex. A. For most of the sealing requests, no designating party filed a 3 statement in support of sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 4 For the other sealing requests, plaintiffs offered only perfunctory claims that the 5 documents at issue contain confidential information that should be shielded from public view. For 6 example, they say that certain documents contain information revealing RMI’s company structure, 7 operations, and profit and revenue. Dkt. No. 76 at 2-3. But plaintiffs fail to explain beyond 8 conclusory statements why they will suffer competitive harm if this information is disclosed. See, 9 e.g., id. (stating RMI’s confidential information “could be used by [RMI]’s competitors to gain an 10 unfair advantage against it”). “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example 11 do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are 12 insufficient for sealing.” DZ Reserve v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, 13 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 14 Consequently, the “‘default posture of public access prevails,’” and the sealing requests are 15 all denied. In re Google Play, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). a 16 || The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the documents by July 31, 2023. Civ. L.R. 17 79-509). 19 Dated: July 24, 2023 20 21 JAMES PONATO 22 United Yates District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal
Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling sought to be sealed sealing Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains information Denied. No designating party Response to portions of ECF designated by filed a statement or declaration Defendants’ page 3 defendants as in support of sealing. Discovery confidential – Dispute Letter, attorneys’ eyes only. Dkt. No. 54-1 (See Dkt. No. 54 at 2) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted portion Contains information Denied. No designating party Letter Brief, of page 2 designated by filed a statement or declaration Dkt. No. 56-1 defendants as in support of sealing. confidential – attorneys’ eyes only. (See Dkt. No. 56 at 3) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains information Denied. No designating party Motion for portions of pages 1- designated by filed a statement or declaration Sanctions, Dkt. 15 defendants as in support of sealing. No. 70-3 confidential – attorneys’ eyes only. (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains information Denied. No designating party Proposed Order portions of pages 2- designated by filed a statement or declaration Granting 3 defendants as in support of sealing. Sanctions, Dkt. confidential – No. 70-4 attorneys’ eyes only. (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 4 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-5 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 6 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-6 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling sought to be sealed sealing Exhibit 7 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-7 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 8 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-8 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 11 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-9 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 14 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-10 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Exhibit 21 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by third- filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ party as confidential. in support of sealing. Motion for (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Sanctions, Dkt. No. 70-11 Exhibit 22 to Entire exhibit Contains information Denied. No designating party Smith Decl. designated by filed a statement or declaration ISO Plaintiffs’ defendants as in support of sealing. Motion for confidential – Sanctions, Dkt. attorneys’ eyes only. No. 70-12 (See Dkt. No. 70 at 2) Document Information Proffered reason for Ruling sought to be sealed sealing Defendants’ Information related Contains non-public Denied. Plaintiffs propose to Opposition to to confidential information related to seal certain redacted portions of Plaintiff’s exhibits RMI’s business pages 7, 8 and 13, but plaintiffs Motion for structure and profits. do not adequately explain how Sanctions (Dkt. (See Dkt. No. 76 at 4) disclosure of their business No. 74-6) structure and profits would cause competitive harm. Exhibit 2 ISO Excerpts Contains information Denied. Plaintiffs did not ask Defendants’ designated by to seal this material in their Opposition to plaintiffs as response. (See Dkt. No. 76 at 1- Plaintiff’s confidential – 4) Motion for attorneys’ eyes only. Sanctions (Dkt. (See Dkt. No. 74 at 2; No. 74-2) Dkt. No. 74-2 at 2) Exhibit 3 ISO Entire document Contains non-public Denied. Plaintiffs propose to Defendants’ information related to seal a redacted portion of page Opposition to RMI’s marketing and 6. Plaintiffs do not adequately Plaintiff’s advertising spend. explain how disclosure of their Motion for (See Dkt. No. 76 at 1) marketing and advertising spend Sanctions (Dkt. would cause competitive harm. No. 74-3) Exhibit 4 ISO Excerpts Contains non-public Denied. Plaintiffs propose to Defendants’ information related to seal redacted portions of pages Opposition to RMI’s profit margin, 4, 32, 34-41, 45-46, 80-82, 49 Plaintiff’s revenues, cashflows, (ECF page 26), see Dkt. No. 76- Motion for and business structure 2. Plaintiffs do not adequately Sanctions (Dkt. and operations. (See explain how disclosure of profit No. 74-4) Dkt. No. 76 at 3) margin, revenues, cashflows, and business structure and operations would cause competitive harm. Exhibit 6 ISO Excerpts Contains non-public Denied. Plaintiffs do not Defendants’ information related to adequately explain how the Opposition to RMI’s business disclosure of its structure and Plaintiff’s structure and operations would cause Motion for operations. (See Dkt. competitive harm. Sanctions (Dkt. No. 76 at 4) No. 74-5)