Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 QUORA, INC., UNDER SEAL 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF 155] 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of her 14 opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and associated exhibits. Mot., ECF 155. 15 Plaintiff filed her request for two reasons: 1) portions of the materials were designated by 16 Defendant as “confidential” or “highly confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order 17 (ECF 64) and 2) the materials contain commercially sensitive documents and information 18 regarding Defendant’s business that the Court previously allowed to be filed under seal with 19 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, see ECF 148. Mot. 1. Defendant filed two 20 declarations in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal. See Decl. of Rebekah Guyon “(Guyon 21 Decl.”), ECF 157, and Decl. of Zhe Fu (“Fu Decl.”), ECF 158. For the reasons stated below, 22 Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 23 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of 27 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 1 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 2 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 3 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 4 1097. 5 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 6 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 7 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 8 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 9 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 10 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 11 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 12 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 13 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 14 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 15 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 16 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 17 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 18 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 19 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 20 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 21 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 22 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 23 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Documents containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in this 26 Circuit. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing exhibit 27 containing trade secrets and adopting definition of trade secret as “any formula, pattern, device or 1 obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it”). The Court has reviewed 2 Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declarations of the designating party submitted in support 3 thereof. The Court finds that the designating party has articulated compelling reasons to seal 4 certain portions of the cited brief and exhibits. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly 5 tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below. 6 ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning 150-1 Declaration of David GRANTED as to the This document contains 7 Sun In portions of the document proprietary, non-public, and 8 Support of Plaintiff’s highlighted at: competitively sensitive Opposition ¶ 8; ¶ 9; ¶ 10; ¶ 11; ¶ 12; technical details. Guyon 9 to MSJ ¶ 13; ¶ 14; ¶ 15; ¶ 16; ¶ Decl. ¶ 3 17; ¶ 18 10 150-4 Wood Decl., Ex. 1 GRANTED as to the The Court grants this request following portions of the as to the selected portions 11 document: because they contain non- 12 42:2-18; public, proprietary, and 45:4-16; commercially sensitive 13 80:1-4; information. Fu Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. 80:23-25; The Court denies the request 14 81:1-25; to the remainder of the 82:1-25; document because 15 DENIED as to the rest of Defendant, the designating 16 the document party, stated that only the specified section would 17 cause Defendant harm if publicly disclosed. Fu Decl. 18 ¶ 4 19 150-4 Wood Decl., Ex. 3 GRANTED as to entire This document contains document information regarding 20 Defendant’s investigation into the data breach, which 21 is non-public information that could be used by a bad 22 actor. Additionally, this 23 document discloses non- public personal information 24 of individuals involved in the investigation. Guyon 25 Decl. ¶ 4 150-4 Wood Decl., Ex. 4 GRANTED as to entire This document contains 26 document information regarding 27 Defendant’s investigation into the data breach, which that could be used by a bad 1 actor. Additionally, this 2 document discloses non- public personal information 3 of individuals involved in the investigation. Guyon 4 Decl. ¶ 4 150-4 Wood Decl., Ex 5 GRANTED as to entire This document contains 5 document information regarding 6 Defendant’s investigation into the data breach, which 7 is non-public information that could be used by a bad 8 actor. Additionally, this document discloses non- 9 public personal information 10 of individuals involved in the investigation. Guyon 11 Decl. ¶ 4 151-2 Weinmann Decl., Ex D GRANTED as to the The Court grants this request 12 following portions of the as to the selected portions document: because they contain non- 13 41:1-21; public, information 14 48:1-8; regarding the data breach, 48:25 and a bad actor could use 15 66:22-25; this information to 67:1-5; perpetrate further attacks. Fu 16 67:13-20; Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 9. 17 67:25; Additionally, the material is 68:1; proprietary, non-public, and 18 68:11-25; competitively sensitive. Fu 69:1-24; Decl. ¶ 8. 19 72:22-73:2; The Court denies the request 73:18-22; to the remainder of the 20 DENIED as to the rest of document because 21 the document. Defendant, the designating party, stated that only the 22 specified section would cause Defendant harm if 23 publicly disclosed. Fu Decl. ¶ 5 24 151-3 Weinmann Decl., Ex E GRANTED as to entire This document contains 25 document information about Defendant’s security 26 measures that, if disclosed, could be used by a bad actor 27 to exploit or infiltrate |i, eed. G10 154 Corrected Opposition to | GRANTED as to the These pages contain 2 Motion for Summary portions of the document | proprietary, non-public, and Judgment highlighted at: competitively sensitive 3 1:25-26; technical details. Guyon 6:11-14; Decl. 75 4 9:6-7; 5 9:13-15; 9:15-16; 6 10:19; 13:15-16; 7 16:7-8; 16:9-10 8 9 Il. ORDER 10 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 11 Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of her opposition to Defendant’s 12 motion for summary judgment and associated exhibits. 13 Dated: October 15, 2020 NV, 16 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28