Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Nicky Laatz filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider whether materials identified as confidential by Zazzle should be sealed. The materials were submitted with Laatz’s reply supporting her renewed motion for relief from the scheduling order. Zazzle filed a statement supporting the sealing of some materials and separately filed its own administrative motion to seal them. Laatz did not respond to Zazzle’s filings.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be accessible to the public. For records connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case, a party must show compelling reasons for sealing. For records connected only indirectly to the merits, such as materials related to certain non-dispositive motions, the court applies the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That standard requires a specific showing of harm or prejudice from disclosure. The court also required the sealing requests to comply with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5 and to be narrowly tailored.

Ruling

The court held that the materials concerned a motion for relief from the scheduling order and therefore applied the good-cause standard. It found good cause to seal material concerning Zazzle’s electronic systems, storage practices, server usage, revenues, computer systems, and business practices. It also found that some material contained personally identifying information, specifically Mohamed Alkhatib’s personal address, and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.

The court ruled as follows:

- Laatz’s reply in support of her renewed motion for relief from the scheduling order: the redacted portions were granted sealing because they contained confidential information about Zazzle’s electronic systems, storage practices, and server usage, disclosure of which could harm Zazzle’s competitive position. - Exhibit 6, excerpts from a deposition transcript: the highlighted sections on pages 9, 140–142, and 161 were granted sealing because they contained confidential information about Zazzle’s electronic systems and Alkhatib’s personal address. Sealing was otherwise denied as to the remainder of the document. - Exhibit 7, Zazzle’s responses to Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14: sealing was granted for those responses because they contained confidential information about Zazzle’s revenues and computer systems. Sealing was otherwise denied as to the remainder of the document. - Exhibit 8, an email exchange concerning font licensing: the entire document was granted sealing because it contained confidential correspondence reflecting Zazzle’s pricing, budget information, licensing terms, and licensing strategies.

Judge Beth Freeman ordered Laatz to file versions of Exhibits 6 and 7 with redactions adjusted to match the ruling within seven days of the order. The court granted in part and denied in part Laatz’s administrative motion and granted Zazzle’s administrative motion to file under seal.