Sectra Communications AB v. Absolute Software Inc

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 SECTRA COMMUNICATIONS AB et al., Case No. C22-353RSM 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 10 DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL 11 v.

12 ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Seal Motion to 16 Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Dkt. #200. Defendants have filed a sealed Motion to 17 Dismiss as well as a redacted version. Dkts. #202 and #203. 18 19 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule 5(g). 20 The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct the parties to present legal and evidentiary support 21 in a motion to seal. That motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal 22 standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from 23 declarations where necessary.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). A “good cause” showing under Rule 24 25 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. 26 City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 27 For dispositive motions, the presumption may be overcome by demonstrating “compelling 28 reasons.” Id.; Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36 (9th Cir.2003). 1 2 Applying the “compelling reasons” standard, the Ninth Circuit has found appropriate the 3 sealing of documents attached to a motion for summary judgment when court records could be 4 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 5 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 6 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). 7 8 The Court has reviewed the Motion and the proposed redactions. The Court finds that 9 the compelling reasons standard applies. While some redactions are to quotes from documents 10 already under seal, other redactions are made to attorney argument merely discussing such 11 exhibits generally. Defendants have articulated no compelling reasons to redact such arguments 12 13 or generalized summary of what sealed exhibits say. Accordingly, those redactions are 14 improper. The remaining redactions are proper given Defendants’ unopposed arguments about 15 potential competitive harm to Mobile Sonic and harm to NetMotion’s third-party clients. See 16 Dkt. #200 at 3–5. Consistent with the strong presumption of public access to the court’s files 17 and the fact that this is not a sealed case, the Court expects the parties to be able to engage in a 18 19 public discussion of their allegations and defenses and will direct Defendants to take another 20 stab at redactions with this in mind. 21 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 22 finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Seal, Dkt. #200, is GRANTED IN 23 PART AND DENIED IN PART. The filing at Dkt. #202 is to remain under seal. Defendants 24 25 are DIRECTED to file a revised redacted version of the Motion, redacting only those portions 26 of the Motion that quote or directly incorporate confidential information, and removing 27 28 redactions from attorney argument or generalized summary of exhibits otherwise under seal. 1 2 This revised redacted version of the Motion is to be filed within the next 30 days. 3 DATED this 26th day of July, 2023. 4

5 6 A 7 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28