Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Judge Freeman granted Intero’s motion to seal portions of Exhibit B containing proprietary, nonpublic business information.
Intero Real Estate Services’s business-records exhibit was affected because the court allowed specified portions containing proprietary, nonpublic, and competitively sensitive information to be filed under seal, limiting public access to those portions.
What happened
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, the defendant asked to seal part of Exhibit B to a supplemental declaration. Plaintiff Ronald Chinitz did not oppose the request.
The court explained that court filings generally are public, but material containing commercially sensitive information may be sealed for compelling reasons. It found that the requested portions contained proprietary, nonpublic, and competitively sensitive details, and that the proposed redactions were generally limited to the material needing protection.
The court granted the defendant’s motion to file portions of Exhibit B under seal. Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order.
The detailed version
- Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · No. 5:18-cv-05623
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 25, 2021
Background
Defendant Intero Real Estate Services filed an amended motion to seal part of Exhibit B to the supplemental declaration of Craig L. Davis. Plaintiff Ronald Chinitz did not oppose the motion.
Legal standard
The court stated that judicial records are generally available for public inspection. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons,” while documents only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The court also noted that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored and supported by a declaration establishing that the material is sealable under the Northern District of California’s local rules.
Discussion
The court explained that documents containing commercially sensitive information may be sealable. After reviewing the motion and Davis’s supporting declaration, the court found compelling reasons to seal certain portions of Exhibit B. It determined that the proposed redactions were generally narrowly tailored and that the identified material contained proprietary, nonpublic, and competitively sensitive details.
Disposition
The court granted Defendant’s motion to file portions of Exhibit B under seal. The table in the order identifies the business-records exhibit and the highlighted portions at LNO00001–000007 and LNO000024–000029 as the material covered by the sealing ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.