The 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
13
©
15
16
it
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28