Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC

Background

Bunsow De Mory LLP filed a second administrative motion asking to seal parts of its complaint and a supporting declaration from Denise M. De Mory, the firm's managing partner. The requested redactions concerned the identities of certain third parties and portions of paragraphs 2, 17, 22–27, 37, 45, 46, 84, and 92. Bunsow De Mory argued that the material contained trade secrets, privileged or otherwise protectable information, and confidential business and legal strategies. It also argued that sealing was needed to comply with confidentiality agreements.

The court had denied Bunsow De Mory's first sealing motion without prejudice because that request was too broad.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are presumptively open to the public. A party seeking to seal complaint material must show compelling reasons and must establish that the material is privileged, contains trade secrets, is otherwise protected by law, or is otherwise sealable under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Confidential business information such as license agreements, financial terms, confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies may satisfy that standard.

Ruling on third-party identities

The court denied sealing for the identities of the third parties mentioned in the complaint. Bunsow De Mory argued that revealing a client's identity would inherently reveal trade-secret information and that other third-party names reflected its licensing and enforcement strategy. The court held that these arguments relied on the context and content of potentially confidential material, rather than showing that the names themselves were trade secrets or confidential business information. The court distinguished the names from confidential agreements, negotiations, business models, and strategies that might properly be sealed.

Ruling on complaint paragraphs

The court allowed sealing for a term from the Consulting Agreement between Bunsow De Mory and North Forty Consulting LLC because it reflected confidential business dealings. It also allowed sealing for descriptions of North Forty Consulting LLC's negotiated performance, statements about what North Forty was authorized to do without Bunsow De Mory's prior approval, and quotations from the Consulting Agreement in paragraphs 22–27.

The court allowed sealing for the complaint's mention of a longtime client's licensing agreement in paragraph 37. It also allowed sealing for statements in paragraphs 45–46 reflecting Bunsow De Mory's confidential business and contractual agreements with third parties and the Consulting Agreement; allegations in paragraph 84 about an agreement between third parties, including specific terms and financial information; and descriptions in paragraph 92 of third-party negotiations and the terms of Bunsow De Mory's agreement with its longtime client.

The court did not allow sealing for descriptions of Bunsow De Mory's efforts to develop a patent licensing program because those descriptions did not identify a patent specifically enough to give competitors an advantage and did not provide specific details about the program's enforcement strategy.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part and denied in part Bunsow De Mory's second administrative motion to file under seal. The court ordered Bunsow De Mory to file an unredacted version of the complaint within seven days of the order.