Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC

Opinion

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