Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

Background

Defendants Zazzle, Inc. and Mohamed Alkhatib filed an administrative motion asking to seal portions of their motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s designated expert witness and related exhibits. Laatz opposed some sealing requests and stated that she did not request sealing of other identified information.

Because the sealing request concerned a motion to exclude expert testimony, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, a party seeking to seal judicial records must provide specific reasons showing that confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s usual right to inspect court records.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the request to seal Exhibits R1 and R2 to the declaration of Thomas Nolan and the redactions on page 22 of Defendants’ motion because Laatz did not request sealing of that material.

The court also denied the request to seal the redactions on page 12 of Defendants’ motion and Exhibits G, I, and J to Nolan’s declaration. Although Defendants described the material as involving the technical operation of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool and servers, the court found that the information had already been publicly disclosed on the docket.

The court found compelling reasons to seal the redacted portions on pages 13–14, 19–21, and 23 of Defendants’ motion and Exhibits K, O, P, and Q to Nolan’s declaration. The material concerned confidential business information, including the numbers of Zazzle’s designers, designs, products, and users, as well as sales, revenues, expenses, and related damages calculations. The court found that public disclosure could cause Zazzle competitive harm and that the requested sealing was narrowly tailored.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ administrative motion to seal. Specifically:

- The redactions on pages 13–14, 19–21, and 23 of Defendants’ motion were sealed. - The redactions on page 12 were not sealed because the information had previously been publicly disclosed. - The redactions on page 22 were not sealed because Laatz did not request sealing. - Exhibit G, the expert report of Daniel Garrie, was not sealed because the information had previously been publicly disclosed. - The identified portions of Exhibit I, excerpts from Jason Li’s deposition transcript, and Exhibit J, excerpts from Bobby Beaver’s deposition transcript, were not sealed because the information had previously been publicly disclosed. - Exhibit K was sealed in its entirety because it contained confidential information about the numbers of Zazzle’s designers, designs, products, and users. - Exhibit O was sealed in its entirety because it contained confidential information about Zazzle’s sales, revenues, expenses, and numbers of users. - The identified portion of Exhibit P was sealed because it contained confidential information about the number of Zazzle’s users. - Exhibit Q was sealed in its entirety because it contained confidential information about Zazzle’s sales, revenues, expenses, and numbers of users. - Exhibits R1 and R2 were not sealed because Laatz did not request sealing.

This order ruled on the sealing motion; the opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying motion to exclude the expert testimony.