Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Nicky Laatz filed an administrative motion asking the court to decide whether materials designated confidential by another party should be sealed in connection with Laatz’s motion for relief from the scheduling order. Defendants supported sealing certain exhibits and asked that additional documents already filed publicly be sealed. Laatz opposed sealing some of the additional materials.

The materials included highlighted portions of Laatz’s motion, Exhibits 6, 9, 12–14, and 16, and 18–20, as well as the Mathews Declaration. Zazzle argued that some materials contained nonpublic customer and revenue information, information about Zazzle’s company structure, employment, and licensing practices, and information about an employee’s parental leave. Laatz argued that parental-leave status was not sensitive health information and that Exhibit 6, Zazzle’s privilege log, did not contain detailed confidential information.

Court’s analysis

Because the materials related to a motion concerning the scheduling order and were only tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court applied the good-cause standard for sealing. Under that standard, the party seeking sealing had to show a legitimate interest in secrecy, explain the harm from disclosure, and propose a narrowly tailored request.

The court found good cause to seal the highlighted portions of Laatz’s motion identified at ECF No. 186-3 and the highlighted portions of Exhibit 9. Those materials contained confidential customer and revenue information, and public disclosure could cause Zazzle competitive harm.

The court denied sealing for Exhibit 6, the privilege log. It found that the log listed information such as dates, senders, recipients, custodians, privilege bases, and general descriptions, but did not contain confidential business information. The court also denied sealing for the additional highlighted portions of Laatz’s motion, the Mathews Declaration, and the highlighted portions of Exhibits 12–14, 16, and 18–20. Those materials merely stated that a Zazzle employee was on parental leave, which the court found was neither confidential personal identifying information nor protected or otherwise confidential health information.

Ruling

Judge Béth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part Laatz’s administrative sealing motion, ECF No. 186. The court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Laatz’s motion at ECF No. 186-3 and the highlighted portions of Exhibit 9. It denied sealing for the additional highlighted portions of Laatz’s motion at ECF No. 198-2, the highlighted portions of the Mathews Declaration, the entire Exhibit 6, and the highlighted portions of Exhibits 12–14, 16, and 18–20.

The court ordered Laatz to file unredacted versions of Exhibits 6 and 16 on the public docket within seven days of the order’s date.