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 UNOPPOSED 11 v. MOTION TO SEAL RESPONSE BRIEF

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

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Seal Plaintiffs’ 16 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Dkt. #284. 17 Plaintiffs have filed a sealed Opposition as well as a redacted version. Dkts. #285 and #287. 18 19 Plaintiffs have also filed sealed documents related to the Opposition. Dkt. #288. 20 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule 5(g). 21 The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct the parties to present legal and evidentiary support 22 in a motion to seal. That motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal 23 standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from 24 25 declarations where necessary.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). A “good cause” showing under Rule 26 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. 27 City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 28 For dispositive motions, the presumption may be overcome by demonstrating “compelling 1 2 reasons.” Id.; Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36 (9th Cir.2003). 3 Applying the “compelling reasons” standard, the Ninth Circuit has found appropriate the 4 sealing of documents attached to a motion for summary judgment when court records could be 5 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 6 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 7 8 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). 9 The Court has reviewed the Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash and the 10 proposed redactions. The Court finds that the good cause standard applies. While some 11 redactions are to quotes from documents already under seal, other redactions are made to 12 13 attorney argument merely discussing such exhibits generally, or discussing the case generally. 14 Plaintiffs have articulated no good cause to redact such arguments or generalized summary of 15 what sealed exhibits say. Accordingly, those redactions are improper. Any redactions to 16 quoted sealed documents are proper given the Court’s prior rulings. The sealing of the exhibits 17 at Dkt. #288 is warranted. Consistent with the strong presumption of public access to the 18 19 court’s files and the fact that this is not a sealed case, the Court expects the parties to be able to 20 engage in a public discussion of their allegations and defenses and will direct Plaintiffs to take 21 another stab at redactions with this in mind. 22 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 23 finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Seal, Dkt. #284, is GRANTED IN 24 25 PART AND DENIED IN PART. The filings at Dkt. #287 and #288 are to remain under seal. 26 Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a revised redacted version of the Opposition, redacting only 27 those portions of the Motion that quote or directly incorporate confidential information, and 28 removing redactions from attorney argument or generalized summary of exhibits otherwise 1 2 under seal. This revised redacted version of the Opposition is to be filed within the next 30 3 days. 4 DATED this 5th day of December, 2023. 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