Ashtiani v. Applied Materials Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-00463
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ashtiani v. Applied Materials, Judge Freeman granted Applied Materials’s request to seal settlement-related filings and redactions.
Applied Materials, Inc.; Amir Ashtiani; and the parties’ filings containing confidential settlement information.
What happened
In Ashtiani v. Applied Materials Inc., Applied Materials asked to keep parts of its opposition to reopening the case and related exhibits confidential because they referred to the parties’ confidential settlement agreement.
The court explained that some court filings may be sealed when there is good cause, and found that confidential settlement terms and related information met that standard. It also found the proposed redactions generally limited to the material that needed protection.
The court granted Applied Materials’s motion to file under seal. The ruling covered highlighted portions of the opposition brief, the entire settlement agreement, and specified portions of a dispute letter. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order.
The detailed version
- Ashtiani v. Applied Materials Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-00463
- Beth Freeman
- July 28, 2021
Background
Applied Materials, Inc. filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of its opposition brief, exhibits attached to that brief, and exhibits submitted in support of its motion to reopen the case. Applied Materials said the materials referred to the parties’ confidential settlement agreement.
Legal standard
The court described the public’s general right to inspect judicial records. Under the applicable Ninth Circuit standard, filings more than tangentially related to a case’s merits generally require “compelling reasons” to be sealed, while filings only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed for “good cause.” The court also cited the district’s local rule requiring sealing requests to identify sealable material, narrowly tailor proposed redactions, and provide a supporting declaration.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that courts in the circuit have found it appropriate to seal confidential settlement agreements when continued secrecy was an important condition of settlement. After reviewing Applied Materials’s motion and the supporting declaration, the court found good cause to seal certain portions of the identified brief and exhibits and found the proposed redactions generally narrowly tailored.
The table in the order ruled as follows:
- The highlighted portions of Applied Materials’s opposition to the motion to reopen the case were GRANTED for sealing because they contained confidential information about the settlement agreement and public disclosure would harm Applied Materials. - The entire settlement agreement was GRANTED for sealing for the same reasons. - The highlighted portions on pages 2 and 3 of the identified dispute letter were GRANTED for sealing. The order directed that a redacted version replace the plaintiffs’ version of that document.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Applied Materials’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its opposition brief and exhibits submitted in support of that brief and the motion to reopen the case. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order on July 28, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.