Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-04844-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ MATERIALS SHOULD 11 Defendants. BE SEALED, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 12 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 13 [Re: ECF No. 284, 292, 293] [14] 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff” or “Laatz”) Administrative Motion 16 to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed, filed in connection with her reply in 17 support of her Renewed Motion for Relief from the Scheduling Order. ECF No. 284. Defendants 18 filed a statement in support of sealing certain materials identified in Laatz’s motion, ECF No. 293, 19 as well as their own Administrative Motion to Seal those materials, ECF No. 292. Plaintiff did not 20 submit any response to Defendants’ statement in support of sealing or Defendants’ administrative 21 motion to seal. 22 This order addresses Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ motions concurrently. For the reasons 23 described below, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials 24 Should be Sealed, ECF No. 284, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ 25 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 292, is GRANTED. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 1 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 2 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 3 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 4 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 5 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 6 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 7 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 8 1092 , 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 9 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 10 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 11 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 12 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 13 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations 14 omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower 15 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a 16 “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 17 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 1210–11 (9th Cir. 18 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 19 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 20 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 22 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 23 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 24 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 25 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 26 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 27 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 1 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 2 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 3 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 4 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 5 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 6 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 797 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 8 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 9 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Because the motion to seal pertains to a motion for relief from the scheduling order, which 12 is only tangentially related to the merits of this action, the Court will apply the “good cause” 13 standard. See, e.g., Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 22-CV-04486, 2023 WL 5520771 , at *6 (N.D. 14 Cal. Aug. 24, 2023) (noting that the good cause standard applies to discovery-related motions); 15 Malig as Tr. for Malig Fam. Tr. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19-CV-02690, 2022 WL 1143360 , at *1 (N.D. 16 Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (applying the good cause standard to documents related to a motion for relief 17 from a magistrate judge’s discovery order); Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc., No. 21-CV18 02450, 2022 WL 6251047 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022) (applying the good cause standard to a 19 sealing motion pertaining to a discovery letter brief). 20 Plaintiff’s sealing motion identifies highlighted portions of her Reply in Support of 21 Renewed Motion for Relief from the Scheduling Order and Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 to the 22 Supplemental Declaration of P. Casey Mathews (“Suppl. Mathews Decl.”) submitted in support of 23 that reply as designated “confidential” by Zazzle under the Protective Order entered in this case. 24 ECF No. 284 at 1–3. Defendants request that some of the highlighted portions of Plaintiff’s reply 25 in support of her renewed motion for relief from the scheduling order remain sealed because they 26 contain “confidential information relating to Zazzle’s electronic systems, including its storage 27 practices and server usage.” ECF No. 292 at 3; ECF No. 293 at 3. Defendants also seek to seal 1 details of the technical operation of Zazzle’s electronic systems.” ECF No. 292 at 3; ECF No. 293 2 at 3. Exhibit 7 “contain[s] confidential information relating to Zazzle’[s] revenues and computer 3 systems” and Exhibit 8 “reflects Zazzle’s business practices, including pricing and budget 4 information.” ECF No. 292 at 3; ECF No. 293 at 3. Defendants argue that “[p]ublic disclosure of 5 this information would harm Zazzle’s competitive standing.” Id. Defendants also argue that the 6 request to seal is narrowly tailored. ECF No. 292 at 4; ECF No. 293 at 4. 7 The Court finds that good cause exists to seal the highlighted portions of Plaintiff’s reply 8 in support of her renewed motion for relief from the scheduling order and the relevant portions of 9 Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to the Mathews Declaration in support thereof. “[S]ealing may be justified to 10 prevent judicial documents from being used ‘as sources of business information that might harm a 11 litigant’s competitive standing.’” California Spine & Neurosurgery Inst. v. United Healthcare Ins. 12 Co., No. 19-CV-02417, 2021 WL 1146216 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) (quoting Nixon, 435 13 U.S. at 598); see also OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-CV-01622, 2015 WL 5714851 , at *2 14 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (finding good cause to seal information relating to a company’s 15 revenues, customers, and sales data). The Court also agrees that “a party’s legitimate interest in 16 ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court 17 filings.” Richter v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 22-CV-04795, 2023 WL 5663217 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18 30, 2023). Finally, the Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal only 19 sealable material. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 20 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: [21] ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling [22] 285 Plaintiff Nicky Redacted portions Granted, as containing 23 Laatz’s Reply in confidential information Support of Renewed relating to Zazzle’s electronic 24 Motion for systems, including its storage Relief from the practices and server usage, [25] Scheduling Order public disclosure of which 26 would harm Zazzle’s competitive position. [27] 285-2 (Ex. 6 to the Excerpts of Sections Granted, as containing [1] Declaration of P. Mohamed Alkhatib highlighted in confidential information 2 Casey Mathews in deposition transcript yellow at pages 9, relating to the technical Support of the 140-142, and 161, operation of Zazzle’s electronic 3 Reply Brief) as reflected in Ex. systems, public disclosure of A to the Larson which would harm Zazzle’s 4 Declaration, filed competitive position, as well as at ECF No. 292-3 containing personally [5] identifying information; 6 namely, Mr. Alkhatib’s personal address. [7] Otherwise denied as to the 8 remainder of the document, as Zazzle does not seek to [9] maintain the entire document 10 under seal. 11 285-3 (Ex. 7 to the Defendant Zazzle Zazzle’s Granted, as containing Declaration of P. Inc.’s Second Responses to confidential information 12 Casey Mathews in Amended Responses Interrogatories relating to Zazzle’s revenues Support of the Reply and Objections to No. 13 and 14 and computer systems, public [13] Brief) Plaintiff Nicky disclosure of which would harm 14 Laatz’s Zazzle’s competitive position. Interrogatories 15 Otherwise denied as to the remainder of the document, as [16] Zazzle does not seek to 17 maintain the entire document under seal. [18] 285-4 (Ex. 8 to the ZAZZLE-003054, a Entire document Granted, as containing 19 Declaration of P. May 2–4, 2017 confidential correspondence Casey Mathews in email Exchange between and among Zazzle [20] Support of the Reply between Mohamed employees that reflects Zazzle’s 21 Brief) Alkhatib and others business practices, including pricing and budget information 22 regarding font licensing, discussion regarding font 23 licensing terms, and strategies regarding font licensing, public [24] disclosure of which would harm 25 Zazzle’s competitive position. [26] 27 III. ORDER 1 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed in 2 connection with her reply in support of her renewed motion for relief from the scheduling order 3 (ECF No. 284) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ Administrative 4 Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 292) is GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL file versions of 5 Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 with redactions adjusted to conform with this ruling within 7 days of the 6 date of this Order. [7] 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. [9] 10 || Dated: September 18, 2024 ETH LABSON FREEMAN %L United States District Judge [16] = 17 Z 18