Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

The court considered an administrative motion by Defendants Zazzle, Inc. and Mohamed Alkhatib to seal specified portions of the transcript of the February 27, 2025 hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The transcript was identified as the provisionally sealed transcript of proceedings, ECF No. 368. Nicky Laatz opposed the motion.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the sealing request concerned materials used at a hearing on a summary-judgment motion, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking sealing must show reasons supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in access. The court also applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires a request to identify the interests supporting secrecy, the injury that would result from disclosure, why less restrictive measures would not suffice, and evidentiary support where necessary. Any sealing must be narrowly tailored.

Parties’ arguments

Defendants argued that the requested portions contained confidential information about Zazzle’s electronic systems, including the number of its servers, and internal business processes and strategies for evaluating potential new fonts and the licenses paid for those fonts. Defendants described the information as confidential and commercially sensitive and argued that public disclosure could harm Zazzle’s competitive standing.

Laatz argued that Defendants had not identified compelling reasons for sealing the information. She also argued that Defendants had not explained how the information was commercially sensitive because information considered by Defendants came from publicly available websites.

Ruling

The court granted Defendants’ requests to seal. It found compelling reasons to protect information revealing details of Zazzle’s electronic systems and its business practices and strategies for evaluating licenses. The court also found that the requests were narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive alternative to redaction was sufficient.

The court ordered redactions to the following portions of ECF No. 368: pages 75:22–23; 90:2, 5–6, 18–20, and 22 through 91:2; and page 91:7 and 11. The order states that these portions contain confidential information about Zazzle’s electronic systems and its internal process for evaluating and purchasing font licenses.