Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 WISK AERO LLC, 7 Case No. 21-cv-02450-WHO (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER 9 ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL ARCHER AVIATION INC., SHOULD BE SEALED 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 234 11

12 Defendant Archer Aviation Inc. (“Archer”) filed a unilateral discovery letter brief along 13 with an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, 14 seeking to file an attachment to the letter under seal. [Docket Nos. 234, 235.] The court 15 previously denied the discovery letter brief (Docket No. 243) and now addresses the motion to 16 seal. 18 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) states that “[f]or any document a party (‘Filing Party’) seeks to 19 seal because that document has been designated as confidential by another party . . . (the 20 ‘Designating Party’), the Filing Party must . . . file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 21 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed.” The “motion must identify each document or 22 portions thereof for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Within seven days, the 23 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration that includes:

24 a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: 25 (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; 26 (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient[.] 27 1 the Designating Party’s statement and/or response. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). “A party must explore 2 all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed 3 under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as opposed to merely redacting 4 the truly sensitive information in a document).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). 5 In assessing whether documents may be filed under seal there is “a strong presumption in 6 favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The 7 Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. City & County of 8 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006). In accordance with the strong public policy 9 favoring access to court records, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of 10 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 11 1178. If the court finds a compelling reason to seal a record, it must then “conscientiously 12 balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep” the records 13 secret. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. However, the court explained that it had “carved out an 14 exception to the presumption of access to judicial records” for “court records attached only to non- 15 dispositive motions.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court reasoned that “the public 16 has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because 17 those documents are often ‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of 18 action.’” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will 19 suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 (citing Foltz, 331 20 F.3d at 1135). The same good cause showing applies to “discovery motion[s] unrelated to the 21 merits of a case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 22 2016). 24 Here, Archer moves to consider whether Exhibit 1 to its unilateral discovery letter brief 25 should be sealed. Exhibit 1 consists of Plaintiff Wisk Aero LLC’s (“Wisk”) objections and 26 responses to four of Archer’s interrogatories. Wisk designated the documents that are part of 27 Exhibit 1 as “Highly Confidential—Attorneys Eyes Only” pursuant to the parties’ protective 1 Wisk timely filed a responsive declaration required by Civil Local Rules 79-5(f)(3) and 79- 2 5(c)(1) in which counsel states that Wisk seeks to seal only two lines of Exhibit 1 describing the 3 details of one of Wisk’s alleged trade secrets. [Docket No. 248 (LaFond Decl., Mar. 17, 2022) 4 4 10 (citing Docket No. 248-1 at ECF p. 6, lines 1-2).] The court finds that Wisk has shown good 5 || cause to seal this information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (finding that compelling reasons 6 || justify sealing court records that could be used to “release trade secrets”). 7 Wisk’s counsel also notes that there are certain portions of the discovery responses in 8 Exhibit | that refer to information that Archer itself designated as confidential or highly 9 || confidential. Archer did not file a response to counsel’s declaration. Accordingly, Archer’s 10 || motion to consider whether Wisk’s material should be sealed is granted only as to Docket No. 11 248-1 at ECF p. 6, lines 1-2. It is otherwise denied. 12 || I. CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, Archer’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 14 || Party’s Material Should Be Sealed is granted in part and denied in part. 15 KS DISTRIG> A 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. iy £ 17 || Dated: September 8, 2022 Sf ERED 4 18 5 De ar Ryu <, 9 4 "Poimeve\ 20 ON Vfudee DoS □□ a SY YA 22 ep D KO ISTRIC 23 24 25 26 27 28