GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.

Background

Amazon moved to seal materials connected to its opposition to GateGuard’s request for permission to file a second amended complaint. The request covered quotations from materials that GateGuard had designated as confidential under the parties’ protective order and exhibits attached to Amazon’s opposition brief. Amazon represented that it did not believe the quotations necessarily had to remain sealed, but sought sealing based on GateGuard’s confidentiality designations. Both parties had designated the exhibits as confidential.

Legal standard

The court applied the common-law and First Amendment presumptions that the public may access judicial documents. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in deciding the case. To overcome the presumption of access, a party must identify specific and substantial reasons for secrecy and show that sealing or redaction—the removal of limited portions of a document—is narrowly tailored to protect those reasons. Commercially sensitive business and financial information can sometimes justify sealing.

The court held that relying on confidentiality designations under a protective order was not enough. A protective order governs discovery exchanges between the parties, but its existence does not by itself establish that materials later filed with the court should remain secret. Neither GateGuard nor Amazon identified reasons against disclosure beyond cursory references to the protective order.

Ruling and effect

Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Amazon’s letter motion to seal without prejudice. The parties were permitted to submit renewed letter motions to seal or redact materials referenced in or attached to Amazon’s opposition brief, provided they specifically explained why the materials met the applicable standard. The renewed motions were due by July 8, 2024. The clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 124 and 129 under seal until that date and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 122.