TechShop, Inc. v. Rasure

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TECHSHOP, INC., Case No. 18-cv-01044-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 129, 173 10 DAN RASURE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Defendants filed administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with 14 their motions in limine and responses to Plaintiff’s motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 127, 129, 173. 15 For the reasons articulated below, the Court DENIES the motions. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 9 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 10 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 11 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 12 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 13 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Because motions in limine are nondispositive motions, the Court will apply the lower good 16 cause standard. Here, Defendants seek to file under seal: (1) portions of their Motion in Limine 17 No. 1; (2) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Andrea Pallios Roberts in Support of Motion in Limine 18 No. 1; (3) portions of their Motion in Limine No. 2; and (4) Exhibits 1, 3–15 to the Declaration of 19 Ann McFarland Draper in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2. 20 See Dkt. Nos. 127, 129, 173. 21 The only proffered justification for sealing is that the information was designated as 22 “confidential” or “highly confidential” by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 127-1 at ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 129-1 at 23 ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 173-1 at ¶ 4. But a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a 24 document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial 25 designation of confidentiality to establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See 26 Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 27 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the 1 considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 2 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, Defendants’ motions do not comply with Civil 3 Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, as the designating party for the materials, Plaintiff did not 4 || comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), because it did not file a declaration within four days of 5 Defendants’ motions. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 6 Wl. CONCLUSION 7 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ administrative motions to file under seal. 8 Dkt. No. 127, 129, 173. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to file public versions of all documents 9 for which the proposed sealing has been denied within seven days of this order. Defendants may 10 also file new motions to seal within seven days of this order according to the requirements 11 discussed above. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 || Dated: 3/10/2020 Abptpured 8 5 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28