Opinion
No. C 12-00700 SI
06-24-2014
SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING VEEAM'S MOTION
TO SEAL
On June 6, 2014, defendant Veeam Software Corporation ("Veeam") filed a motion to stay with accompanying exhibits and a motion to seal. Docket Nos. 215-217. On June 11, 2014, Veeam filed a motion to remove its incorrectly filed motion to stay and exhibits B and C to the declaration of Byron Pickard in support of Veeam's motion to stay. Docket No. 223. On June 13, 2014, the Court granted Veeam's motion to remove the incorrectly filed documents and substituted corrected versions of the motion to stay and exhibits B and C in the public record. Docket No. 227. Currently before the Court is Veeam's motion to seal portions of its motion to stay and exhibits B, C, D, and F to the Pickard declaration in support of Veeam's motion to stay. Docket No. 217.
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are "traditionally kept secret," courts begin their sealing analysis with "a strong presumption in favor of access." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of "articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be "narrowly tailored," such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Because Veeam's motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion, the "good cause" standard applies. See SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that a motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion).
Veeam moves to seal its motion to stay and exhibits B, C, D, and F to the Pickard declaration in support of Veeam's motion. Docket No. 217. To make the showing of good cause, the moving party must make a "particularized showing" that "'specific prejudice or harm'" will result if the information is disclosed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186; accord Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" are insufficient to establish good cause. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
Veeam has submitted the declaration of Byron Pickard in support of its motion to seal. Docket No. 217-1, Pickard Decl. Veeam argues that its motion to stay cites to and excerpts portions of documents designated by both parties as "Highly Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only" pursuant to the amended stipulated protective order signed by the Court on March 27, 2013. Pickard Decl. ¶ 9. Veeam also argues that exhibits B, C, D, and F to the Pickard declaration in support of Veeam's motion include portions of expert reports which have been designated "Confidential Information Subject to Protective Order" or "Highly Confidential." Id. ¶¶4-9. Veeam explains that the disclosure of this information could cause both parties competitive harm because the documents reveal confidential financial, marketing, and sales information. Id.; Docket No. 230-1, Cassidy Decl. ¶¶ 13-15. After reviewing the attached declaration, the Court concludes that Veeam has shown good cause for sealing portions of its motion to stay and exhibits B, C, D, and F to the Pickard declaration in support of Veeam's motion to stay.
In addition, Veeam's request is narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact only the sealable information from the motion and the exhibits. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Veeam's motion to seal. Docket No. 217.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE