Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 19-cv-06879-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, et al., [Re: ECF 129] 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal 1) Exhibit B to the 14 Declaration of Yahor Fursevich in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 15 Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint, and 2) portions of Palantir’s Opposition to 16 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint (“Opposition”) discussing 17 and referencing Exhibit B. See Mot., ECF 190. Plaintiff filed its request because Defendants 18 designated Exhibit B as “Confidential” pursuant to the protective order entered by the state court 19 prior to removal of this case to this Court. Id. 2. Defendants filed a response clarifying which 20 portions of the documents they want sealed. See Resp., ECF 131. For the reasons stated below, 21 Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 22 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 27 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 1 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are 2 only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. 3 at 1097. 4 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 5 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 6 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 7 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 8 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 9 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 10 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 11 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 12 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 13 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 14 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 15 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 16 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 17 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 18 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 19 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 20 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 21 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 22 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Tax identification numbers and wire transfer instructions are properly sealable in this 25 district. See Outfitters Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., No. 16-cv-02954-LB, 2019 WL 8752333, at *2 (N.D. 26 Cal. Sept. 27, 2019). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declarations of the 27 designating party submitted in response. The Court finds that the designating party has articulated 1 generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table 2 || below. 3 ECE No. Document to be Result Reasoning Sealed 4 130 Opposition DENIED as to entire | Defendants, the document designating party, do 5 not seek to seal this information. Decl. of 6 Niels J. Melius 4 (‘“Melius Decl.”) □□ 4, ECF 131-1. 8 130-3 Exhibit B to GRANTED as to wire | The wire transfer Opposition transfer instructions instructions contain 9 on final page of sensitive and Exhibit B; confidential financial- 10 DENIED as to the account numbers. ll rest of the document | Melius Decl. 4. However, Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal 13 any additional information in this exhibit. Id. □□□ 15 || 1. ORDER 17 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Z 18 Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its Opposition and Exhibit B in 19 support thereof. 20 21 || Dated: November 13, 2020 kom Lh ham én) 22 3 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28