Sequoia Benefits & Insurance Services LLC v. Costantini

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

SERVICES, LLC, 11 No. C 20-08089 WHA Plaintiff, 12

v.

13 ORDER DENYING PARTIAL LUCIANO COSTANTINI, et al., MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 18 Trade secret claimant Sequoia Benefits & Insurance Services, LLC sought and received 19 leave to move for reconsideration of a prior order denying a motion to file Sequoia’s Exhibit G 20 under seal (Dkt. Nos. 80, 83). Both parties having been heard, the request is DENIED. 21 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 22 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 23 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marylyn 24 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A 25 clear error involves “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive 26 legal arguments . . . . ” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). 27 The challenged order ruled that Sequoia’s “boilerplate justification” did not “rise to the 1 granted Sequoia’s request to conditionally seal another document, Exhibit 120, for containing 2 the alleged trade secrets at issue in the case (Dkt. No. 80 at 2-3). 3 Sequoia now argues that the similarities between Exhibit G and Exhibit 120 warrants also 4 sealing the former. But Sequoia’s own descriptions of the documents belie that argument: 5 Sequoia described Exhibit G as “showing Sequoia client identities and certain account 6 information”; in contrast, Sequoia described Exhibit 120 as “showing confidential identity of 7 Sequoia’s clients, the clients’ billing effective dates with Sequoia, invoicing methods, dates 8 showing when Sequoia’s clients became Sequoia’s clients, email addresses of client contacts, 9 and pricing information” (Dkt Nos. 20 at 3; 55 at 4). 10 Sequoia has not shown that the previous sealing order failed to consider material facts or 11 dispositive legal arguments, and has failed to supply facts to justify reconsideration, let alone 12 its request to seal the document. Sequoia cannot now swap out its insufficient justification for 5 13 sealing Exhibit G with the successful justification from another (purportedly similar) 14 document. 16

= 17 Dated: June 2, 2021 18 Pree 19 ( A WILLIAM ALSUP 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28