Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:18-cv-04881
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, Judge Corley denied renewed motions to seal materials about Energous and a former employee.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ requests to keep portions of summary-judgment filings and exhibits from public view; it also concerned information about Energous and a former employee.
What happened
Emily Fairbairn and other plaintiffs asked the court to seal parts of filings and exhibits connected to summary judgment in Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund. The materials included information about Energous and a former employee, including communications about the employee’s employment status.
The plaintiffs argued that disclosure could harm the former employee’s privacy and Energous’s business interests. They relied on statements from their attorneys describing conversations with the third parties, but neither Energous nor the former employee submitted a declaration supporting the requests.
The court found that these general statements did not show specific reasons for sealing the materials and denied both renewed motions. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order on March 2, 2020.
The detailed version
- Fairbairn v. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · No. 3:18-cv-04881
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed renewed administrative motions to seal portions of Fidelity Charitable’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion, related exhibits, and portions of the plaintiffs’ reply brief and exhibits. The court had previously denied requests to seal the same material, while allowing renewal with declarations showing that Energous and/or a third party considered the information confidential and properly subject to sealing.
The renewed motions concerned nonpublic information about Energous and a former employee, including internal communications about the former employee’s employment status and transition. The plaintiffs argued that disclosure could harm the former employee and Energous because the materials contained private personal information and nonpublic business information. Neither Energous nor the former employee submitted a declaration. Instead, the plaintiffs’ counsel submitted attestations describing discussions with the third parties and their requests that the information remain sealed.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the compelling-reasons standard for sealing court records, citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu. Under that standard, general assertions that information is confidential or nonpublic are not enough. A party must provide a particularized explanation connecting the material to a specific harm that would justify restricting public access.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ and third parties’ statements were conclusory. They did not explain specifically how disclosure of the identified materials would cause harm or why that harm outweighed the public’s interest in access to court records. The court therefore concluded that the showing did not satisfy the compelling-reasons standard.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motions to seal, Docket Nos. 166 and 167. The order stated that it disposed of those docket entries. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order on March 2, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.