Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLC
- 3:19-cv-08179
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLC, the court denied Carbon Crest’s sealing motion because it showed no compelling reason to restrict public access.
Carbon Crest LLC’s request to keep the acquisition letter and related portions of its filing from public view was denied; the information remains unsealed and publicly accessible in the litigation.
What happened
In Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLC, Carbon Crest asked to seal a letter of intent from Tencue’s acquirer and parts of its opposition to Tencue’s summary-judgment motion. The materials discussed the timing and sale price of Tencue’s acquisition, which related to the amount Carbon Crest claimed the contract required Tencue to pay.
Carbon Crest said it took no position on whether the information met the requirements for sealing, but explained that Tencue had labeled it confidential under a discovery protective order. The court said that a confidentiality label alone does not justify sealing court filings.
The court denied Carbon Crest’s motion to file under seal, concluding that Carbon Crest had not shown a compelling reason to overcome the public’s strong interest in access to court documents. The order was issued by the court on February 10, 2021.
The detailed version
- Carbon Crest LLC v. Tencue Productions, LLC · No. 3:19-cv-08179
- Feb. 10, 2021
Background
Carbon Crest sought permission to file under seal a letter of intent from Tencue Productions, LLC’s acquirer and portions of Carbon Crest’s opposition to Tencue’s summary-judgment motion. The proposed sealed portions described the timing and sale price of Tencue’s acquisition. According to the order, those details formed the basis for the amount Carbon Crest allegedly was owed under the contract at issue.
Parties’ Positions
Carbon Crest took no position on whether the information satisfied the requirements for sealing. It stated that Tencue had designated the information “Confidential — Subject to Protective Order” during discovery. The order does not identify a separate argument by Tencue concerning sealing.
Ruling
The court explained that a discovery confidentiality designation does not automatically entitle a party to seal information filed in litigation. Relying on the strong policy favoring public access to court documents, the court found that Carbon Crest had made no attempt to show a compelling reason for sealing the materials. The court also stated that the figure at issue illuminated the amount of compensation sought and should remain public. Carbon Crest’s motion to file under seal was DENIED.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.