Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:16-cv-00119
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc., Judge Gilliam granted Synchronoss’s renewed request to keep one line of business information under seal.
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., whose confidential business information was involved, and the public, which will not have access to the single sealed line.
What happened
In Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., Synchronoss asked the court to seal one line in its opposition to Dropbox’s request for attorney’s fees. The line referred to confidential business information about Synchronoss’s operations.
The court applied the rule requiring a specific showing that disclosure would cause harm. It found that Synchronoss had shown good cause to seal the limited portion, even though the court had previously denied a request concerning the same material because it cited a public regulation.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Synchronoss’s renewed motion to seal the single identified line.
The detailed version
- Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc · No. 4:16-cv-00119
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Synchronoss filed a renewed administrative motion asking to seal one line in its opposition to Dropbox’s motion for attorney’s fees. Synchronoss said the line referred to confidential business information concerning its operations. The court had previously denied a request to seal this specific portion because it viewed the material as a citation to a public regulation. Synchronoss argued that the same material had been sealed elsewhere in the argument, and the renewed motion sought a uniform ruling.
Legal standard
Because the records were attached to a nondispositive motion, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That standard requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm.
Ruling
The court found that Synchronoss had shown good cause to seal the single line because it contained a reference to confidential business information relating to Synchronoss’s operations. The court agreed that sealing the limited portion was appropriate and granted the renewed motion to seal. The opinion did not decide Dropbox’s underlying request for attorney’s fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.