Krush Technologies, Inc. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

Background

Both parties filed administrative motions asking to seal portions of discovery letters and attached exhibits. Because the discovery letters did not concern the merits of the case, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard for sealing.

Krush Technologies LLC’s motion

Krush Technologies LLC’s motion and supporting declaration stated that the material had been designated “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Zoom under the district’s interim model protective order. The court held that merely referring to a protective order or confidentiality designation did not establish that the documents were sealable under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). The court also noted that Zoom, as the designating party, had not filed the supporting declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The court therefore denied Krush Technologies LLC’s motion and directed it to file an unredacted version of its documents.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc.’s motion

Zoom’s motion similarly relied on its “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation and added that the documents contained confidential technical material relating to Zoom’s technology. The court held that good cause requires a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm from public disclosure. It found that simply asserting confidentiality was insufficient, particularly because Zoom had not sought redaction of similar information in connection with Krush Technologies LLC’s discovery letter. The court denied Zoom’s motion and ordered Zoom to file an unredacted version of its documents on the public docket by November 7 at noon.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup denied both motions to file under seal. The order addressed the parties’ sealing requests and did not decide the underlying merits of their dispute.