Bunsow De Mory LLP v. North Forty Consulting LLC

Background

North Forty Consulting LLC, identified as both the defendant and counterclaimant, filed an administrative motion asking to seal portions of its amended answer and the declaration supporting that motion. The requested excerpts allegedly contained or reflected confidential information and materials. North Forty said its request was narrowly tailored in light of the court’s earlier order concerning its first motion to seal.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Under the applicable standard, a party seeking to seal records must show compelling reasons, and the Northern District of California’s local rule requires the material to be privileged, protectable as a trade secret, otherwise legally protected, or sealable.

The court determined that the identified portions of the amended answer referred to confidential terms of the parties’ consulting agreement and to confidential business dealings that were not intended for public disclosure. It also found that references to licenses, the parties’ business models, and North Forty’s license agreement with Landis+Gyr Inc.—including confidential licensing negotiations and financial terms—warranted sealing.

Disposition

The court granted Defendant’s second administrative motion to file under seal. Under the cited local rule, the confidential material in North Forty’s amended answer will remain under seal. The order did not resolve the merits of the parties’ claims or counterclaims. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.