Mewawalla v. Middleman
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-09700
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mewawalla v. Middleman, Judge Chen granted and denied administrative requests to seal documents, ordering some materials sealed and others publicly filed.
The parties and the public docket were affected: some documents or portions remained sealed temporarily, while other materials were to be publicly filed in redacted or unredacted form.
What happened
Mewawalla v. Middleman involved the parties’ requests to keep portions of court documents private. The court had previously required narrower and clearer requests under the district’s sealing rules.
The court granted several sealing requests, denied sealing for listed portions of a defendant’s partial summary-judgment filing, and approved public filing of materials the parties agreed to unseal or redact. The sealing decisions were temporary as to how the documents would be handled if the case went to trial.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to file publicly redacted versions within three court days and stated that the order disposed of the listed administrative motions.
The detailed version
- Mewawalla v. Middleman · No. 3:21-cv-09700
- Edward Chen
- June 25, 2024
Background
The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to seal documents or portions of documents. The court had previously ordered them to refile those requests with narrower and clearer explanations under Local Rule 79-5 and the Ninth Circuit’s sealing standards. This order addressed Docket Nos. 187, 188, and 189, along with the earlier sealing motions at Docket Nos. 131, 132, 135, and 137.
Rulings on Sealing
The court stated that redactions must be narrowly tailored. For documents connected to dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment, the party seeking sealing must provide compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. The court also noted that merely identifying a general privilege without explaining how it applies to particular documents is insufficient.
The court nevertheless ordered interim sealing as follows:
- It denied the request to keep the listed portions of the defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment under seal. - It granted requests to seal specified valuation and financial information concerning Xpanse, including specified figures, documents filed in their entirety, and specified portions of exhibits. - It granted the parties’ agreed requests to file certain exhibits publicly, including exhibits from Docket Nos. 131, 132, and 137, as identified in the order. - It granted the parties’ agreement to publicly file additional exhibits after eliminating pages that were not cited or relied upon. - It granted the parties’ request to redact Xpanse valuation information from Mr. Mewawalla’s declaration supporting plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendant’s partial summary-judgment motion.
Effect of the Order
The court’s sealing grants were without prejudice to how the documents would be handled if the case proceeded to trial. The parties were ordered to file publicly redacted versions consistent with the rulings within three court days. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 131, 132, 135, 137, 187, 188, and 189. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on June 25, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.