Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff filed an administrative motion asking the court to file certain materials under seal and to consider whether Defendants’ material should remain sealed. The motion was connected to Plaintiff’s request for permission to file a sur-reply. The materials included portions of that request, a supporting declaration and attached exhibits, and Plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff said the materials contained information Defendants had designated confidential or highly confidential under the case’s protective order.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally are available for public inspection. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for compelling reasons, while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause. The court also described the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 for sealing requests, including supporting reasons, evidence when necessary, and narrowly tailored requests. When one party seeks to seal another party’s confidential material, the designating party must provide the required justification.

Ruling

Defendants stated that they had no objection to the provisionally sealed documents being unsealed. The court therefore denied Plaintiff’s motion. It ordered redactions to Plaintiff’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply; the supporting declaration of Casey Mathews and specified exhibits; and Plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply to Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court directed Plaintiff to file revised redacted versions of those documents in the public record within seven days after the order was issued.