The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Case No. 22-cv-04826-BLF
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’
10 GOOGLE LLC, REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
11 Defendant.
[Re: ECF No. 458]
12
13
Before the Court is “Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibits to Defendants’
14
Reply in Support of its Motion For Summary Judgment.” Mot., ECF No. 458. For the following
15
reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
16
I. LEGAL STANDARD
17
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
18
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
19
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
20
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
21
“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
22
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
23
1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
24
upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
25
In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
26
Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
27
document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5
3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”
4 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
5 material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
6 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
7 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
8 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
9 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
10 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
11 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-
12 5(f)(3). Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
13 II. DISCUSSION
14 Because the motion to seal pertains to briefing on a motion for summary judgment, the
15 Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1177.
16 Defendants state that the information they seek to seal contains confidential information
17 about the design, development, operation, and testing of their products. Mot. 2. They further state
18 information also discloses the internal functionality of Defendants’ products and Defendants’
19 business decision-making in the course of developing their products. Zaharia Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No.
20 458-1. Defendants explain that they do not publicly disclose this information, and that its
21 disclosure would give competitors an unfair business advantage. Mot. 2. Defendants also state
22 that their request is narrowly tailored. Id. at 2.
23 The information to be sealed includes technical information relating to products and
24 confidential business information, including pricing models. Courts have found such information
25 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-
26 CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7429304, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (finding compelling reasons to
27 seal “information about the technical operation of the products, financial revenue data, and
1 requests are narrowly tailored.
2 Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
3
ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling
4
458-2 Document Bates- Highlighted portions of GRANTED, as containing
5 labeled WAZE- pages with Bates labels confidential business
AGIS00026406- 26420 ending in -26408, -26409, - information, including
6
26410, -26411, -26412, - internal product
7 26413, -26414, -26415, - development and
26416, -26417, -26418, - functionality, pricing
8
26419, and -26420. models, and Defendants’
9 assessment of products by
competitors in the same
10
space and internal
11 development timelines—the
disclosure of which would
12
cause Defendants
13 competitive harm.
458-3 Document Bates- Highlighted portions of GRANTED, as containing
14
labeled WAZE- pages with Bates labels confidential business
15 AGIS00028148- 28152 ending in -28148, -28149, - information, including
28150, -28151, and - internal product
16
28152. development and
17 functionality—the
disclosure of which would
18
cause Defendants
19 competitive harm.
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
Il. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal
2
(ECF No. 458) is GRANTED. Defendants SHALL file public versions of the documents with the
3
permitted redactions by no later than September 4, 2023.
4
5
Dated: August 21, 2023
7 BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28