Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2023
Docket4:21-cv-07250
StatusUnknown

This text of Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC (Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC) 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
Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UNLOCKD MEDIA, INC. LIQUIDATION Case No. 21-cv-07250-HSG TRUST, 8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 60 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s administrative motion to consider 14 whether another party’s materials should be sealed. See Dkt. No. 60. The motion pertains to 15 discrete sections of its pending motion to dismiss that Plaintiff Unlockd Media, Inc Liquidation 16 Trust contends are non-public and protectable trade secrets. See Dkt. No. 62. For the reasons 17 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 21 derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 22 judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 23 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 24 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the 25 party seeking to seal a document attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling 26 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 27 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 1 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing 2 court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ 3 such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 4 statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 5 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 6 However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the same 7 strong presumption of access. See id. at 1179. Because such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower 9 “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179–80 (quotations 10 omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 11 result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 12 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 13 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 14 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of a footnote in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 17 Nos. 60, 62. Because Defendants seek to seal documents related to a dispositive motion, the Court 18 applies the “compelling reasons” standard. In the motion to dismiss, Defendant references dollar 19 amounts that Plaintiff cites in the FAC. These figures represent the average revenue per user that 20 Plaintiff received on a monthly basis, as well as a projection of its future revenue had its business 21 continued. The Court has previously concluded that there are compelling reasons to seal such 22 confidential business and financial information, see Dkt. No. 92, and GRANTS this motion on the 23 same basis. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS the motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), 3 |} documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under 4 seal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 3/21/2023

aatwode S. GILLIAM, JR. □ 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

it

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unlockd-media-inc-liquidation-trust-v-google-llc-cand-2023.