Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., Judge Freeman denied sealing of portions of hearing slides and ordered revised redacted slides filed publicly.
Nicky Laatz must file a revised redacted version of the hearing slides publicly; the materials identified for sealing will not remain sealed based on this motion.
What happened
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., Nicky Laatz asked the court to consider sealing portions of slides she used at a hearing on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. She said the slides contained information the defendants had designated confidential or highly confidential under a protective order.
The defendants, or another designating party, did not file the statement or declaration required by the court’s local sealing rule by the deadline. The opinion states that no party had filed that required material when the court issued its order.
The court denied Laatz’s motion, ordered the requested redactions denied, and directed Laatz to file a revised redacted version of the slides in the public record within seven days. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-04844
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Nicky Laatz filed an administrative motion asking whether portions of slides she used at a hearing on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should remain sealed. Laatz identified portions of the slides as containing information that defendants had designated “confidential or highly confidential” under a protective order.
Legal standard
The court explained that court filings and attachments more than tangentially related to a case’s merits may be sealed only for compelling reasons. Filings only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed on a showing of good cause. The court also described Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), which applies when a party seeks sealing because another party designated material as confidential. Under that rule, the party that designated the material must file a statement or declaration explaining the reasons for sealing, the harm from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not work. The rule also allows other parties to respond.
Ruling
The deadline for the required statement or declaration was March 9, 2025. The court found that no party had filed one concerning the materials Laatz provisionally filed under seal. For that reason, the court denied Laatz’s motion. It also ordered the requested sealing denied for highlighted portions of slides 54, 55, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 106, 133, and 135, and directed Laatz to file a revised redacted version of the slides in the public record within seven days from issuance of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.