Opinion

Mewawalla v. Middleman

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
May 31, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.0%

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 RAHUL MEWAWALLA, Case No. 21-cv-09700-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON REVISING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

10 STANLEY C. MIDDLEMAN, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12

13 The parties have filed several administrative motions to file under seal. See Docket Nos.

14 131, 132, 135, and 137. In general, the parties’ proposals are far too broad. See L.R 79-5(f)(6)

15 (“overly broad requests to seal may result in the denial of the motion”).

16 Motions for an order concerning administrative relief “must set forth specifically … the

17 reasons supporting the motion.” L.R. 7-11(a). Pursuant to the local rules, a motion to file under

18 seal must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping

19 a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests

20 that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less

21 restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” L.R. 79-5(c) (emphasis in original). For

22 dispositive motions and judicial records attached to a dispositive motion, a party seeking to seal a

23 document “must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” to warrant

24 redacting. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)

25 (emphasis added).1 Information may be sealed only if it represents confidential “business

26 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” or a “trade secret[].” In re

27

1 Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). However, “[s]imply mentioning a

2 general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the

3 documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184.

4 Here, for example, Defendants moved to seal eight entire exhibits to its motion for

5 summary judgment. See Docket No. 132; see also L.R. 79-5(a) (“A party must … minimize the

6 number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as

7 opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document)”). Redactions must be

8 “narrowly tailored.” Id. Defendants provided only general reasons for sealing these exhibits,

9 some of which include key depositions and internal emails. For example, in Exhibit II, it states

10 “Xpanse leadership will propose a one-time funding proposal to be presented to the Board of

11 Directors of Xpanse (“Board”) by the end of Q1 2021 to cover Xpanse operations for any amounts

12 required above and beyond the funding amounts in items 1-3 described above.” Since there are no

13 figures or amounts stated, it is difficult to see how this constitutes either confidential business

14 information or a trade secret. Defendants state that this is confidential “forecasting, business

15 planning, budgeting, funding and liquidity” which is vague and does not meet the “compelling

16 reasons” standard. As another example, in Exhibit JJ, internal communications indicate that one

17 Defendant stated “getting a little concerned about Rahul just want to tell you about some of it and

18 see what you think” and another Defendant replied “sounds good we just need to make sure we

19 have the right controls and reporting in place and can drive accountability.” The fact that this

20 exchange puts Defendants in an unfavorable light does not satisfy the “compelling reasons”

21 standard. The proposed redactions are far from being narrowly tailored.

22 Thus, for Docket Nos. 131, 132, 135, and 137, the moving party must re-submit their

23 compliant administrative motions to file under seal by Friday, June 7, 2024. The parties must

24 narrow their requests for redactions and provide declarations establishing why each redaction is

25 within the meaning of the local rule. Failure to comply with this order may result in complete

26 denial of the motion.

27

1

2 Dated: May 31, 2024

3

4

EDWARD M. CHEN

5 United States District Judge

6

7

8

9

10

11

a 12

2 13

14

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.