Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-03412-BLF
12-10-2019
PINNACLE VENTURES LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BERTELSMANN EDUCATION SERVICES, Defendant.
OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 83, 88, 91, 94]
Before the Court are several unopposed administrative motions to file under seal documents relating to (1) Defendant's Answer and Counterclaims; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss and Special Motion to Strike Defendant's Counterclaims; (3) Defendants' Opposition; and (4) Plaintiffs' Reply.
The motions are GRANTED for the reasons discussed below.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097.
Sealing motions filed in this district also must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
Because the parties' sealing motions relate to Defendant's pleading and the briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss and strike that pleading, the sealing motions are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Thus, the compelling reasons standard applies. Having reviewed the parties' motions and supporting declarations, the Court concludes that the parties' have articulated compelling reasons to seal portions of the documents at issue and that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing motions are set forth below.
| ECF No. | Document to be Sealed | Ruling | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 83-4 | Defendant's Answer to FirstAmended Complaint andCounterclaims | GRANTED as to thehighlighted portionsof paragraphs 1, 2, 6,8, 9, 11, 12, 24-27,29, 37, 39, 40, 48-50,52, 53, 94, 96, 98-102, 104-109, 115,and 120. | The proposedredacted portionsdescribe or quotebusiness, financial,and other informationregarding non-partyprivate companyHotChalk, Inc., thedisclosure of whichwould causecompetitive harm toHotChalk. MorenoDecl. ¶ 3, ECF 83-1. |
| 88-4 | Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismissand Special Motion to StrikeDefendant's Counterclaims | GRANTED as to thehighlighted portionsof pages 2, 4, 5, 8, 9,11, and 12. | The proposedredacted portionscontain sensitive,non-public, andconfidential businessand financialinformation relatingto Plaintiffs,Defendant, andHotChalk, a privatelyheld company that isnot a party to thisaction. This |
| information couldcause competitiveharm to Plaintiffs,Defendant, andHotChalk if madepublic. Lutz Decl. ¶¶2-8, ECF 88-1. | |||
| 88-6 | Exhibit A to Declaration ofBrian Lutz in Support ofPlaintiffs' Motion to Dismissand Special Motion to StrikeDefendant's Counterclaims | GRANTED as toentire document | The document is aloan and securityagreement enteredinto betweenPlaintiffs andHotChalk. It containssensitive, non-public,and confidentialbusiness and financialinformation relatingto Plaintiffs and third-party HotChalk. LutzDecl. ¶¶ 2-8, ECF 88-1. |
| 88-8 | Exhibit A to Declaration ofBrian Lutz in Support ofPlaintiffs' Motion to Dismissand Special Motion to StrikeDefendant's Counterclaims | GRANTED as toentire document | The document is aloan and securityagreement enteredinto betweenDefendant andHotChalk. It containssensitive, non-public,and confidentialbusiness and financialinformation relatingto Defendant andthird-party HotChalk.Lutz Decl. ¶¶ 2-8,ECF 88-1. |
| 91-4 | Defendant's Opposition toPlaintiffs' Motion to Dismissand Special Motion to StrikeCounterclaims | GRANTED as to thehighlighted portionsof pages 3, 4-6, 12,14, 16, 18-19, and 21. | The proposedredacted portionsdescribe sensitivebusiness, financial,and other informationrelated to non-partyprivate companyHotChalk and/orDefendant, that ifdisclosed would harmHotChalk'scompetitive standingin the market andDefendant's leverageto negotiated futurefinancing. MorenoDecl. ¶ 3, ECF 91-1 |
| 94-4 | Reply in Support of Plaintiffs'Motion to Dismiss and SpecialMotion to Strike Defendant'sCounterclaims | GRANTED as to thehighlighted portionsof pages 8 and 11. | The proposedredacted portionscontain sensitive,non-public, andconfidential businessand financialinformation relatingto Plaintiffs,Defendant, andHotChalk, Inc., aprivately heldcompany that is not aparty to this action.This informationcould causecompetitive harm toPlaintiffs, Defendant,and HotChalk if madepublic. Lutz Decl. ¶¶2-5, ECF 94-1. |
III. ORDER
The parties' sealing motions filed at ECF 83, 88, 91, and 94 are GRANTED. The parties have filed redacted versions of the documents in question. No further action is required. Dated: December 10, 2019
/s/_________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge