[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
[6] 7 JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
10 QUORA, INC., [Re: ECF 172] 11 Defendant.
[12] 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of exhibits 14 submitted in support of her motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate 15 judge. Mot., ECF 172. Plaintiff files her request because portions of the materials were designated 16 by Defendant as “confidential” or “highly confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order 17 (ECF 64). Mot. 1. Defendant filed a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal. See Decl. 18 of Zhe Fu (“Fu Decl.”), ECF 180. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
[19] I. LEGAL STANDARD
[20] “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
[21] and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of
[22] Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
23 U.S. 589 , 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the
[24] merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for
[25] Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only
[26] tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at
[27] 1 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 2 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 3 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 4 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 5 is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file 6 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 7 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 8 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.
9 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 10 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 11 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 12 The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 13 been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 14 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 15 the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 16 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 17 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 18 than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
[19] 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Documents containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in this 22 Circuit. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing exhibit 23 containing trade secrets and adopting definition of trade secret as “any formula, pattern, device or 24 compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 25 obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it”). The Court has reviewed 26 Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declarations of the designating party submitted in support 27 thereof. The Court finds that the designating party has articulated compelling reasons to seal 1 tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below. 2 || |ECENo, [DocumenttobeSealed [Result | Rensoning 171-2 Wood Decl., Ex. 1 GRANTED as to the This document contains non3 . oe . portions of the document | public information about 4 highlighted at: Quora’s response to the 42:2-18; cybersecurity attack it 5 43:27; suffered in 2018. The public 92:17; disclosure of this 6 93:5-16; information cause be used 7 94:4-13; by bad actors to further 95:2—25 attack and breach Quora’s 8 systems. Fu Decl. { 5. 171-3 Wood Decl., Ex. 2 GRANTED as to the This document contains non9 highlighted two lines on | public information about the second page of the Quora’s response to the 10 document. cybersecurity attack it 1 suffered in 2018. The public disclosure of this 3 12 information cause be used by bad actors to further 13 attack and breach Quora’s systems. Fu Decl. 6
©
[16] & Il. ORDER = 17 8 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s administrative motion to
19 file under seal portions of exhibits submitted in support of her motion for relief from
50 nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge
[21] Dated: October 26, 2020 22 kom Low herman! 23 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
Loading…