Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMILY FAIRBAIRN, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04881-JSC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 FIDELITY INVESTMENTS Re: Dkt. Nos. 166 & 167 CHARITABLE GIFT FUND, 11 Defendant. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motions to seal (1) portions of 14 Fidelity Charitable’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and exhibits thereto, 15 and (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of summary judgment and exhibits thereto. 16 (Dkt. Nos. 166 & 167.) The Court previously denied motions to seal this material without 17 prejudice to renewal accompanied by declarations showing that Energous and/or the third-party 18 contend that the information is confidential and properly subject to sealing. (Dkt. No. 157.) 19 In the renewed motions to seal Plaintiffs seek sealing of nonpublic information regarding 20 Energous and a former employee (Mr. Leabman), including internal communications regarding 21 the former employee’s employment status. Plaintiffs contend that “[t]he disclosure of the 22 confidential information in these documents would be harmful to the former employee of 23 Energous and to Energous because they contain private personal information about the former 24 employee and nonpublic business information about Energous that could be improperly used by 25 Energous’s competitors to harm its business.” (Dkt. No. 167 at 3:24-27; see also Dkt. No. 166 at 26 3:23-26.) Neither Mr. Leabman nor Energous have submitted declarations in support of sealing, 27 but counsel for Plaintiffs attest that they have spoken to both third parties and they requested 1 disclosure of facts and opinions relating to his employment status at Energous, including his 2 transition in January.” (Dkt. No. 166-1 at ¶ 6.) Similarly, counsel for Energous advised Plaintiffs’ 3 counsel that “that these documents or portions thereof should be sealed because they contain 4 nonpublic, confidential information, the disclosure of which will harm Energous’ privacy 5 interests. Specifically, she was concerned about the public disclosure of facts and opinions relating 6 to personnel decisions about Energous employees.” (Dkt. No. 167-2 at ¶ 6.) 7 These attestations fail to satisfy the compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana v. City & 8 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Examples of compelling reasons include 9 “the use of court records for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private spite, promote public 10 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. “Simply mentioning a general 11 category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, 12 does not satisfy the burden.” Id. Plaintiffs and the third parties’ conclusory statements that the 13 materials discussed therein are confidential and nonpublic, does not demonstrate that they are 14 properly sealable. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK PSG, 2013 15 WL 412864, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (“Although Samsung recites boilerplate terms that this 16 information is proprietary and confidential, it does not provide a particularized showing of how 17 this information would be detrimental if disclosed.”); Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128- 18 WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)( “[a]n unsupported assertion of unfair 19 advantage to competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information to 20 obtain an unfair advantage is insufficient.”); Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 21 3:12–cv–3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (“although 22 [defendant] identifies the information at issue as proprietary and confidential, it does not provide 23 reasons beyond the boilerplate references to competitive disadvantage if the information were 24 publicly available.”); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 12–cv–1971–CW, 2013 25 WL 4049686, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2013) (denying sealing where party “failed to state what 26 harm [it] would experience if this material were publicly disclosed or to provide any specific 27 reasons, supported by facts, that could outweigh the public policy favoring public access to court 1 publicly-traded company, in a manner that would render the information subject to sealing. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motions to seal are DENIED. 3 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 166 and 167. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: March 2, 2020 , ne 7 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28