Huang v. Morrow
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-07751
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Huang v. Morrow, Magistrate Judge Spero sealed two complaint versions for limited purposes despite filing-rule defects.
Xiaohua Huang, the public’s access to docket entries 17 and 18, and third parties whose confidentiality interests were implicated by the documents.
What happened
In Huang v. Morrow, Xiaohua Huang, representing himself, asked the court to seal two versions of his second amended complaint because they allegedly contained sensitive trade-secret and chip-design information.
The court found that Huang had not followed the required sealing procedures. He had not submitted a supporting declaration, proposed order, suitable redacted versions, or highlighted unredacted versions, and he did not explain why he waited more than two weeks after filing the documents.
Magistrate Judge Spero nevertheless ordered docket entries 17 and 18 sealed because the request implicated third parties’ confidentiality interests. The court limited its use of those documents to deciding the pending motion to dismiss and motion for leave to amend unless Huang files a new sealing motion that complies with the local rules.
The detailed version
- Huang v. Morrow · No. 3:20-cv-07751
- Joseph Spero
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
Xiaohua Huang, who was representing himself, moved to seal two versions of his second amended complaint, docket entries 17 and 18. He said the documents contained sensitive information, including an alleged chip floor plan, schematics, TCAM design data, and chip layouts connected to products made by Cisco and NetlogicMicrosystems. Huang characterized this information as trade secrets or confidential information.
Sealing requirements
The court explained that a party seeking to seal a complaint or another civil-court filing must show compelling reasons and must request sealing narrowly, often through redactions rather than sealing an entire document. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) requires an administrative motion, a supporting declaration establishing that the material is sealable, a narrowly tailored proposed order, a suitable redacted version, and an unredacted version identifying the proposed redactions. The rule also provides procedures when the request is based on another party’s confidentiality designation. The court stated that those procedures were also appropriate when, as here, the request was based solely on another party’s confidentiality interests, even without a protective order.
The court’s action
The court found that Huang had not complied with the local rules. His motion lacked a supporting declaration, proposed order, suitable redacted versions, and highlighted unredacted versions. The court also noted that the documents had been publicly available for more than two weeks before Huang sought sealing and that he gave no explanation for the delay.
Despite those deficiencies, the court ordered docket entries 17 and 18 sealed out of caution because the motion implicated third parties’ confidentiality interests. The court stated that it would not consider those documents for any purpose other than deciding the pending motion to dismiss and motion for leave to amend unless and until Huang filed a new administrative motion complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including subsections (d) and (e). The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or motion for leave to amend. If the court later declined to dismiss the case and allowed Huang to amend, Huang would have to file a compliant sealing motion before proceeding on the second amended complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.