Avaya Inc. v. Pearce
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-00565
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Avaya v. Pearce, Judge Illston ordered DBSI defendants to support their sealing request with a declaration by October 17, 2019.
Avaya Inc. and the DBSI defendants, whose requested sealing of exhibits remained subject to the required supporting declaration.
What happened
In Avaya Inc. v. Pearce, Avaya asked to seal exhibits supporting its supplemental opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. The DBSI defendants had marked all the exhibits “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” but had not filed the required declaration supporting that designation.
The court ordered the DBSI defendants to file a declaration by October 17, 2019, explaining why the exhibits or parts of them should remain sealed. The court said that sealing documents attached to a non-dispositive motion requires a specific showing of likely harm or prejudice, and that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored.
Judge Susan Illston did not rule on whether the exhibits should ultimately be sealed. Instead, she directed the DBSI defendants to provide the required support for the sealing request.
The detailed version
- Avaya Inc. v. Pearce · No. 3:19-cv-00565
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 15, 2019
Background
Avaya Inc. filed an administrative motion seeking to file under seal several exhibits supporting its supplemental opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. The DBSI defendants had designated all of the exhibits “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, however, the party designating material as confidential had to file a declaration establishing why the material was sealable. The DBSI defendants had not filed that declaration.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that documents attached to a non-dispositive motion may be sealed only upon a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Good cause requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific harm or prejudice. A confidentiality designation, stipulation, or protective order alone does not establish that documents are sealable. The court also noted that a request to seal must be narrowly tailored so that only information properly subject to sealing is withheld from public access.
Order and Effect
The court directed the DBSI defendants to file a declaration no later than October 17, 2019, demonstrating why the exhibits or portions of the exhibits should be filed under seal. The opinion did not grant or deny the sealing request and did not decide whether any particular exhibit would remain sealed. The court issued the order on October 15, 2019. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.