Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 NICKY LAATZ, Case No. 5:22-cv-04844-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 280, 281] 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Before the Court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF Nos. 280, 15 281. Defendants seek to file under seal Exhibits B and C to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan 16 (“Nolan Decl.”) filed in conjunction with Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief 17 from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 248), which were designated by 18 Zazzle as CONFIDENTIAL under the Protective Order (ECF No. 153). 19 Defendants filed their motion to seal in two parts: at ECF No. 280, they filed the motion 20 and supporting papers, and at ECF No. 281, they filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge with Exhibits B and C to the 22 Declaration of Thomas Nolan attached (under seal). This Order concurrently resolves both docket 23 entries. 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 & Cty. of 27 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 1 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 3 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 4 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 5 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 6 1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 7 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 8 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 9 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 10 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 11 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations 12 omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower 13 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a 14 “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 15 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 16 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 17 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 18 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 20 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 21 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 22 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 23 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 24 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 25 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only sealable 26 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 27 II. DISCUSSION 1 No. 280. Defendants seek to seal the entirety of Exhibit B and selected portions of Exhibit C. 2 ECF No. 280 at 1–2. Defendants write that the information should be sealed because it “reflect[s] 3 confidential information regarding the company’s business structure, practices, analyses, and 4 strategies, and there is no less restrictive alternative for protecting such information from 5 disclosure.” Id. at 3. 6 The Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies because the materials at issue are 7 related to a non-dispositive pre-trial discovery motion. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (noting 8 that “[a] ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to 9 non-dispositive motions”) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 10 The Court finds that good cause exists to seal Exhibits B and C. The exhibits contain 11 information related to Zazzle’s business structure, strategies, and practices, public disclosure of 12 which would harm Zazzle’s competitive standing. See, e.g., California Spine & Neurosurgery 13 Inst. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-02417, 2021 WL 1146216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14 12, 2021) (“[S]ealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used ‘as sources 15 of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” (quoting Nixon, 435 16 U.S. at 598)); Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 3:22-CV-00447, 2024 WL 17 3160746, at *11 (D. Nev. June 24, 2024) (finding good cause to seal materials containing 18 “sensitive trade secrets, source code, and/or confidential financial information that is proprietary 19 and the disclosure of such information would be harmful to the parties”). 20 The Court also finds that there is good cause to seal the personal information reflected in 21 Exhibit C. District courts within the Ninth Circuit have noted that protecting personal information 22 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard and thus also satisfies the less exacting “good cause” 23 standard. See, e.g., Richter v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 22-cv-04795, 2023 WL 5663217, at *2 (N.D. 24 Cal. Aug. 30, 2023); Gomo v. NetApp, Inc., No. 17-CV-02990, 2019 WL 1170775, at *3 (N.D. 25 Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal exhibits containing “details regarding . . . 26 personal information about NetApp executives and their spouses”). 27 Finally, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal only 1 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:! 2 Ex. No. Document Portions to be Sealing Basis Filed Under Seal 3 Ex. Bto Nolan | ZAZZLE-003068 Entire Document | Granted, as the document 4 Decl. contains confidential correspondence regarding 5 Zazzle’s business structure, strategies, practices, and 6 analyses, public disclosure of which would harm Zazzle’s 7 competitive position. See ECF 8 No. 280-1 at 1. 9 Ex. C to Nolan | Excerpts of Catherine | Sections Granted, as the document Decl. Sheu (30(b)(6) highlighted in red | contains confidential 10 witness) deposition at pages 10, 92- correspondence reflecting transcript 93, as reflected in | Zazzle’s business structure, 11 Ex. A to the strategies, practices, and 2 Larson analyses, public disclosure of Declaration which would harm Zazzle’s & 13 submitted in competitive position. support of the Additionally, the document sealing motion. contains personal information. 5 ECF No. 280-2. See ECF No. 280-1 at 2. 16 || 1. ORDER = 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Administrative 18 || Motion to File Under Seal filed in conjunction with Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion 19 for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge is GRANTED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: September 25, 2024 TH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 ' On pages 1 and 3 of their Administrative Motion, Defendants mention requesting to seal three 97 || exhibits. However, Defendants only discuss Exhibit B and Exhibit C in the motion, supporting declaration, and proposed order. 28