Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BUNSOW DE MORY LLP, Case No. 20-cv-04997-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 NORTH FORTY CONSULTING LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 28 Defendant. 11 12 Before the Court is Defendant and Counterclaimant’s administrative motion to file under 13 seal portions of its amended answer, and the declaration of Darren Neilson, counsel for Defendant, 14 in support of Defendant’s administrative motion. (See Dkt. No. 28). 15 Defendant now seeks to file under seal excerpts of the amended answer that contain or 16 reflect confidential information and materials. Defendant alleges that its requests are narrowly 17 tailored in light of this Court’s previous order regarding its first administrative motion to file under 18 seal. (Dkt. No. 26). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 19 administrative motion. 20 I. Legal Standard 21 There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. 22 Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Courts generally apply a “compelling 23 reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents, recognizing that “a strong 24 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 25 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 26 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. 27 First Databank, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 1 “establishes that the document, or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 2 otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” or “sealable.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 3 Confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of 4 confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” 5 standard. Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *1; see also In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17- 6 cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing is 7 warranted to prevent competitors from “gaining insight into the parties’ business model and 8 strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *4-5 9 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). 10 II. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 11 Defendant seeks to seal paragraphs of the answer that concern the parties’ consulting 12 agreement. (Dkt. No. 28-4 at 10-11 ¶¶ 3-4; 12-13 ¶¶ 18-23; 15 ¶¶ 39-40; 16 ¶ 45; 17 ¶¶ 47, 51; 13 17-18 ¶¶ 54-55, 59; 19 ¶ 70.) Explicit references to terms from the consulting agreement between 14 Plaintiff and Defendant reflect confidential business information and dealings between the parties 15 that are not intended for public disclosure, and therefore warrant sealing. See Finistar Corp., 2015 16 WL 3988132, at *4. Similarly, references to licenses and the parties’ business models are 17 deserving of seal. (Dkt. No. 28-4 at 16 ¶¶ 42-43.) See Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1; In re 18 Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2. The answer’s reference to the terms of Defendant’s 19 license agreement with Landis+Gyr Inc. likewise concerns confidential licensing negotiations and 20 financial terms that are deserving of seal. (Dkt. No. 19-4 at 17 ¶ 53.) See Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 21 WL 2838812, at *1. 22 CONCLUSION 23 As set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s second administrative motion to file 24 under seal. Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1), the confidential material in Defendant’s 25 amended answer will remain under seal. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 2 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 3 United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27