Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz

Background

Palantir Technologies Inc. moved to file under seal Exhibit B to a declaration supporting its opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss Palantir’s Fifth Amended Complaint. Palantir also sought to seal portions of that opposition discussing or referring to Exhibit B. The request followed the defendants’ designation of Exhibit B as confidential under a protective order entered in state court before the case was removed to federal court. The defendants responded by identifying which portions they wanted sealed.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally open to public inspection. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits require compelling reasons for sealing; documents only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause. Sealing requests must be narrowly tailored, and a confidentiality designation under a protective order alone is not enough to establish that material is sealable. When another party makes the confidentiality designation, that designating party bears the burden of showing that the material may be sealed.

Ruling

The court’s table ruled as follows:

- ECF 130, the opposition: Sealing was DENIED as to the entire document because the defendants did not seek to seal that information. - ECF 130-3, Exhibit B: Sealing was GRANTED as to the wire-transfer instructions on the final page because they contained sensitive and confidential financial-account numbers. Sealing was DENIED as to the rest of the document because the defendants did not seek to seal additional information in the exhibit.

The order GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Palantir’s administrative motion to file portions of its opposition and Exhibit B under seal. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order on November 13, 2020.