Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey

N.D. California

Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey

DecidedMarch 25, 2021

Docket3:15-cv-02281

StatusUnknown

This text of Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey (Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 TOTAL RECALL TECHNOLOGIES, 14 Plaintiff, No. C–15–02281–WHA 15 v. 16 PALMER LUCKEY, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pending now are seven administrative motions to seal covering over a hundred 21 documents filed in connection with defendants’ summary judgment and Daubert motions, as 22 well as documents related to the Court’s prior order on supplemental briefing (Dkts. 312, 322, 23 327, 328, 329, 346, 352). The Court has reviewed these administrative motions and is shocked 24 to see the parties wish to seal such trivia as: 25 a. The statement “Can’t wait to try it” (Dkt 346-9, Exh. 16) as well as a reference to that statement in a brief (Dkt 346-3, Supp. Br. at 22); 26 27 b. Luckey’s statement in a 2012 email to Seidl that Luckey “Can't wait to get into this, very enthused” along Luckey’s name, email address, and c. Just the words “attached is an invoice” and “From: Palmer Luckey 1 palmertech@gmail.com” in a 2012 email (Dkt 346-11, Exh 25); 2 d. A reference in a brief that Ron Igra stated he would “get rich” from the 3 success of Oculus (Dkt. 312-8, Br. at 7);

4 e. The words “3D is essential” in an email from Seidl to Luckey (Dkt. 346-16, Exh. 54); 5

6 f. The statement “Talking with John Carmack (id Software) about the possibility of designing future games for use with my open-source 7 head mounted display design” posted on social media (Dkt 349-2, Exh. 24). 8 9 This is beyond the pale. The indiscriminate use of the confidentiality stamp alone warrants the 10 denial of the entirety of the motions. The only arguably legitimate request that the Court can 11 so far find is a request to seal a spreadsheet containing the names and addresses of multiple 12 uninvolved third parties (Dkt. 325-14, Exh. 87). 13 In addition, the parties are denied under the “compelling reasons” standard required by 14 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties 15 seek to seal documents required for even a basic understanding of the case, including large 16 substantive portions of briefs, entire email threads covering multiple exchanges between 17 Luckey and Seidl, relevant portions of deposition transcripts, and documents relevant to the 18 preliminary phases of Oculus’s formation. 19 The United States District Court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of either TRT or 20 Facebook Technologies. If the parties wanted to proceed in total privacy, they should have 21 arbitrated this dispute. Instead, they brought this dispute to a public forum that belongs to the 22 people of the United States, not TRT or Facebook. The United States people have every right 23 to look over our shoulder and review the documents before the Court. The standard under 24 Kamakana is not met for any document. 25 The information contained in the documents is stale, having occurred years ago. Even if 26 the documents had a figment of needed privacy when they were fresh, that time has long since 27 passed. 1 The effectiveness of this order will be stayed until MARCH 9TH AT NOON to allow either 2 side to seek emergency relief from the court of appeals, failing which all documents will 3 remain public. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 25, 2021. 8 (As Anne ILLIAM ALSUP 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 TOTAL RECALL TECHNOLOGIES, 14 Plaintiff, No. C–15–02281–WHA 15 v. 16 PALMER LUCKEY, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pending now are seven administrative motions to seal covering over a hundred 21 documents filed in connection with defendants’ summary judgment and Daubert motions, as 22 well as documents related to the Court’s prior order on supplemental briefing (Dkts. 312, 322, 23 327, 328, 329, 346, 352). The Court has reviewed these administrative motions and is shocked 24 to see the parties wish to seal such trivia as: 25 a. The statement “Can’t wait to try it” (Dkt 346-9, Exh. 16) as well as a reference to that statement in a brief (Dkt 346-3, Supp. Br. at 22); 26 27 b. Luckey’s statement in a 2012 email to Seidl that Luckey “Can't wait to get into this, very enthused” along Luckey’s name, email address, and c. Just the words “attached is an invoice” and “From: Palmer Luckey 1 palmertech@gmail.com” in a 2012 email (Dkt 346-11, Exh 25); 2 d. A reference in a brief that Ron Igra stated he would “get rich” from the 3 success of Oculus (Dkt. 312-8, Br. at 7);

4 e. The words “3D is essential” in an email from Seidl to Luckey (Dkt. 346-16, Exh. 54); 5

6 f. The statement “Talking with John Carmack (id Software) about the possibility of designing future games for use with my open-source 7 head mounted display design” posted on social media (Dkt 349-2, Exh. 24). 8 9 This is beyond the pale. The indiscriminate use of the confidentiality stamp alone warrants the 10 denial of the entirety of the motions. The only arguably legitimate request that the Court can 11 so far find is a request to seal a spreadsheet containing the names and addresses of multiple 12 uninvolved third parties (Dkt. 325-14, Exh. 87). 13 In addition, the parties are denied under the “compelling reasons” standard required by 14 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties 15 seek to seal documents required for even a basic understanding of the case, including large 16 substantive portions of briefs, entire email threads covering multiple exchanges between 17 Luckey and Seidl, relevant portions of deposition transcripts, and documents relevant to the 18 preliminary phases of Oculus’s formation. 19 The United States District Court is not a wholly owned subsidiary of either TRT or 20 Facebook Technologies. If the parties wanted to proceed in total privacy, they should have 21 arbitrated this dispute. Instead, they brought this dispute to a public forum that belongs to the 22 people of the United States, not TRT or Facebook. The United States people have every right 23 to look over our shoulder and review the documents before the Court. The standard under 24 Kamakana is not met for any document. 25 The information contained in the documents is stale, having occurred years ago. Even if 26 the documents had a figment of needed privacy when they were fresh, that time has long since 27 passed. 1 The effectiveness of this order will be stayed until MARCH 9TH AT NOON to allow either 2 side to seek emergency relief from the court of appeals, failing which all documents will 3 remain public. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 25, 2021. 8 (As Anne ILLIAM ALSUP 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Total Recall Technologies v. Palmer Luckey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/total-recall-technologies-v-palmer-luckey-cand-2021.