The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12 SNAPKEYS, LTD, Case No. 19-CV-02658-LHK
13 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE
14 v.
UNDER SEAL
15 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 97
16 Defendant.
17
Plaintiff Snapkeys, Ltd. (“Snapkeys”) sues Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) for breach
18
of contract and conversion. Before the Court is Google’s motion to file under seal portions of
19
Google’s motion for summary judgment and portions of the declarations and exhibits that were
20
filed in support of Google’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 97. Having considered the
21
motion, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND
22
DENIES IN PART Google’s motion to file under seal.
23
LEGAL STANDARD
24
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
25
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
26
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
27
1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong
2 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
4 related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,
5 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons
6 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
7 policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and
8 citation omitted). Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when
9 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to
10 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade
11 secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the
12 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further
13 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
14 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
15 of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at
16 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court
17 records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or
18 only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation
19 omitted)). Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related
20 to the merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal
21 Rules of Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
22 1179–80.
23 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established
24 by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request
25 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or
26 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly
27 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil [Local Rule] 79-
1 5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
2 order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format
3 each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of
4 the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the
5 document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1).
6 DISCUSSION
7 Google moves to file under seal portions of Google’s motion for summary judgment and
8 portions of the exhibits and declarations that were filed in support of Google’s motion for
9 summary judgment. See ECF No. 97. In determining which standard applies to a motion to seal,
10 “[t]he focus . . is on whether the motion at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying
11 cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. In the instant case, the motion at issue is a
12 motion for summary judgment, a dispositive motion that is more than tangentially related to the
13 underlying causes of action, so the “compelling reasons” standard applies to Google’s motion to
14 seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 1181 (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a
15 motion to seal documents attached to a motion for summary judgment); Cal. Spine &
16 Neurosurgery Inst. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1146216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12,
17 2021) (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a motion to seal an exhibit to a declaration
18 attached to a motion for summary judgment because a motion for summary judgment is “a
19 dispositive motion that is more than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action”);
20 Microsoft Corp. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., 2020 WL 4901610, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
21 Aug. 20, 2020) (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a motion to seal documents
22 attached to a motion for summary judgment because “motions for summary judgment are more
23 than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action”).
24 Google contends that Google has compelling reasons to seal the following information: (1)
25 confidential information about Google’s smartwatch keyboard technology; (2) confidential non-
26 party information; (3) personally identifiable information; and (4) documents designated as
27
1 confidential by Snapkeys. See ECF No. 97. The Court addresses each category of information in
2 turn.
3 A. Confidential Information about Google’s Smartwatch Technology
4 Google seeks to seal a limited amount of confidential information concerning Google’s
5 smartwatch keyboard, which is contained in the following exhibits to declarations filed in support
6 of Google’s motion for summary judgment: (1) Exhibits 3 and 11 to the Declaration of Clement
7 Wright; (2) Exhibits 2–5 and 10 to the Declaration of Henry Ou; (3) Exhibits 6 and 9 to the
8 Declaration of Tom Ouyang; and (4) Exhibits 2–7 to the Declaration of Mark Renouf. ECF No. 97
9 at 2. Google contends that sealing this information is necessary because Google would suffer
10 competitive harm if this information were to be released. Id. at 2–3.
11 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent
12 judicial documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a
13 litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Accordingly, courts have found
14 compelling reasons to seal “proprietary and confidential business information” that would harm a
15 party’s competitive standing. See In re Electronic Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)
16 (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum
17 payment terms,” which would harm a party’s competitive standing if disclosed); DiscoverOrg
18 Data, LLC v. Bitnine Global, Inc., 2020 WL 8669859, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (finding
19 compelling reasons to seal confidential information where disclosure would harm the plaintiff’s
20 competitive standing). Specifically, courts have found compelling reasons to seal information
21 regarding a company’s proprietary technology when the disclosure of that information would
22 result in competitive harm. See U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., 2014 WL 6664621,
23 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) (finding compelling reasons to seal “proprietary literature
24 describing the structure, configuration, and operation of the Sun Ethernet technology”); Guzik
25 Tech. Enterprises v. Western Digital Corp., 2013 WL 6092852, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013)
26 (granting motion to seal confidential information regarding the plaintiff’s technology where the
27 disclosure of that information would harm the plaintiff’s competitive standing).
1 Similarly, the Court concludes in the instant case that the competitive harm that would
2 result from the disclosure of confidential information regarding Google’s smartwatch technology
3 is a compelling reason that outweighs the general history of access and the public policies favoring
4 disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Because the Court concludes that there are
5 compelling reasons to seal confidential information regarding Google’s smartwatch technology,
6 the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to file under seal confidential information about Google’s
7 smartwatch technology.
8 B. Confidential Non-Party Information
9 Google seeks to seal a limited amount of confidential non-party information regarding its
10 business partners, which is contained in the following declarations and exhibits to declarations
11 filed in support of Google’s motion for summary judgment: (1) the Declaration of Clement Wright
12 and Exhibits 1 and 2 thereto; (2) the Declaration of Braden Sheff and Exhibit 1 thereto; (3) Exhibit
13 1 to the Declaration of Mark Renouf; and (4) Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Tom Ouyang. ECF
14 No. 97 at 3. Google contends that the disclosure of this information could harm the competitive
15 standing of Google and its business partners. Id.
16 As explained above, courts have found compelling reasons to seal confidential information
17 that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See Section III(A), supra. Specifically, this Court
18 has found compelling reasons to seal confidential information regarding a party’s business
19 partners where the disclosure of that information would harm the party’s competitive standing.
20 See, e.g., DiscoverOrg Data, LLC, 2020 WL 8669859, at *3 (finding compelling reasons to seal
21 confidential information about the plaintiff’s contracts with third parties where the disclosure of
22 that information would harm the plaintiff’s competitive standing); Am. Automobile Ass’n of N.
23 Cal., Nev., & Utah v. Gen. Motors LLC, 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)
24 (finding compelling reasons to seal contracts between the plaintiff or defendant and third parties
25 where the information would harm the parties’ competitive standing). The Court comes to the
26 same conclusion in the instant case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to file
27 under seal confidential non-party information.
C. Personally Identifiable Information
1
Google seeks to redact personally identifiable information of its current and former
2
employees, including their email addresses and telephone numbers, which is contained in the
3
following exhibits to declarations filed in support of Google’s motion for summary judgment: (1)
4
Exhibits 4, 6–8, 15, 16, and 18–24 to the Declaration of Clement Wright; (2) Exhibit 8 to the
5
Declaration of Mark Renouf; (3) Exhibits 13 and 15 to the Declaration of Henry Ou; and (4)
6
Exhibits 2, 7, and 8 to the Declaration of Tom Ouyang. ECF No. 97 at 4. This personally
7
identifiable information is not relevant to the merits of Google’s motion for summary judgment.
8
This Court has found compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information. See
9
Am. Automobile Ass’n of N. Cal., Nev., & Utah, 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14,
10
2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information, “including names,
11
addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses”); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2014 WL
12
233827, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (granting motion to seal personal information, including a
13
home address, phone number, and email address). The Court comes to the same conclusion in the
14
instant case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to file under seal personally
15
identifiable information.
16
D. Documents Designated as Confidential by Snapkeys
17
Google seeks to seal documents designated by Snapkeys as confidential pursuant to the
18
Stipulated Protective Order that has been entered in the instant case, ECF No. 48. See ECF No. 97
19
at 5. Google has also redacted all references to those documents in its Motion for Summary
20
Judgment. Id.
21
If the party filing an administrative motion to file under seal is seeking to file under seal a
22
document designated as confidential by the opposing party pursuant to a protective order, the party
23
that designates the information as sealable must file a declaration establishing that the designated
24
material is sealable within 4 days of the filing of the administrative motion to file under seal. See
25
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
26
27
1 In the instant case, Google seeks to file under seal documents designated as confidential by
2 Snapkeys pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order that has been entered in the instant case.
3 ECF No. 97 at 5. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Snapkeys’ declaration was due 4 days after the
4 March 18, 2021 filing of Google’s motion to file under seal. As of today, May 14, 2021, Snapkeys
5 has not filed a declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. Accordingly, the
6 Court DENIES Google’s motion to file under seal documents designated as confidential by
7 Snapkeys. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
8 CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
10 Google’s motion to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Google shall refile its
11 motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits in conformance with the rulings herein
12 within seven days.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 Dated: May 14, 2021
16 ______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
17 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27