AirWair International Ltd. v. Zoetop Business Co., Limited ( 2021 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 EUREKA DIVISION 4 5 AIRWAIR INTERNATIONAL LTD., Case No. 20-cv-07696-SI (RMI) 6 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL 7 v. Re: Dkt. No. 87 8 ZOETOP BUSINESS CO., LIMITED, 9 Defendant. 10 11 The Parties have moved to file certain portions of a discovery dispute letter brief (along 12 with certain portions of the attached exhibits) under seal. See Adm. Mot. (dkt. 87). The Parties’ 13 motion, however, is due to be denied for a number of reasons. First, Local Civil Rule 79-5(c) 14 requires that mere “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate 15 certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, 16 are sealable”; and yet, that is the only asserted basis for seeking to place the redacted portions of 17 the documents in question under seal. See Adm. Mot. (dkt. 87) at 2-3; see also Poppen Decl. (dkt. 18 87-1) at 2. Further, Local Civil Rule 79-5(c)(1) requires the Parties to include “a specific statement 19 of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an 20 explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that 21 will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 22 sufficient.” Here, the Parties have completely overlooked these requirements and have merely 23 stated that the redacted portions of the documents in question were simply designated by one party 24 as “confidential.” 25 In order for this court to enter an order sealing material which is not of the sort that is 26 “traditionally kept secret” from public view, the proponent must overcome a strong presumption 27 in favor of public access – that is the starting point – and overcoming that presumption requires 1 outweigh the historical bases for public access and the underlying policies favoring disclosure, 2 such as (for example) the overriding public interest in understanding the judicial process. See 3 generally Kamakana y. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). In this 4 || regard, the courts must balance the competing interests of the public against those of the party who 5 seeks to keep certain judicial records secret, and after considering those interests, if the court 6 || decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision to do so on a compelling reason 7 and it must articulate the factual basis for that ruling without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 8 || Id. 9 Generally speaking, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 10 || disclosure such as to justify sealing court records would exist when, for example, the information 11 in question might become a vehicle for improper purposes, like the gratification of private spite, or 12 || the promotion of public scandal, or the circulation of libelous statements, or (more commonly) the 5 13 release trade secrets — however, the mere fact that the production of records might lead to a 14 litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or even the exposure to further litigation will not, without 3 15 || more, compel a court to seal its records. Id. at 1179. Quite apart from the Parties’ failure to comply 16 with even the most basic provisions of Civ. L.R. 79-5, the court has reviewed and considered the 5 17 redactions in question in light of the applicable legal standards (including the good-cause standard 18 applicable to documents produced in discovery) and finds that none of the proposed redactions are 19 suitable for being sealed and kept out of the public record under any applicable standard. 20 || Accordingly, the Administrative Motion to Seal (dkt. 87) is DENIED and the Parties are 21 ORDERED to re-file their letter brief and the exhibits thereto (dkt. 88) without any redactions on 22 || the publicly available docket of this case within seven (7) days from the date of this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: December 27, 2021 6 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28