MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-08103
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In MasterObjects v. Amazon, Judge Alsup granted some sealing requests and denied the rest, allowing limited redactions for confidential information.
MasterObjects, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and the public’s access to the specified court filings.
What happened
MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. concerned requests to keep portions of court filings from public view. The court emphasized the public’s right to access court records.
The court found that some requested redactions concerned Amazon source code and confidential agreements whose disclosure could harm Amazon’s competitive position. It also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Judge Alsup granted each request only as to the specified material and denied it otherwise. The parties were ordered to file documents complying with the order within 28 days.
The detailed version
- MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-08103
- William Alsup
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
The parties asked the court to seal portions of filings and attachments. The court stated that court records are generally open to the public. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The court also explained that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific reasons, not merely by a confidentiality designation or protective order.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- Docket 121-3, motion for leave to file a first amended complaint and accompanying documentation: Granted as to the requested material identified in the Anderson Declaration, consisting of portions of Exhibit K and Exhibit 1 to Exhibit K. Otherwise, denied. The court found that the material contained sensitive information about Amazon’s source code and that public disclosure could cause Amazon competitive harm. - Docket 135-4, second amended complaint: Granted as to the requested material on page 28, line 2; page 37, lines 5–6; and page 37, lines 14–15. Otherwise, denied. The court found that this material contained information allegedly constituting confidential agreements with third parties, whose disclosure could cause Amazon competitive harm. - Docket 135-6, Exhibit K to the second amended complaint: Granted as to the requested material on page 2, line 15 (the last word only); page 2, line 27; page 3, lines 6–8 and 19–24; page 4, lines 10–15 and 22–26; and Exhibit 1. Otherwise, denied. The court again found that the material contained sensitive information about Amazon’s source code and that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
The court noted that a later sealing request could receive a different decision if the information became more relevant to future proceedings and the public interest in access increased. The parties were ordered to file documents in full compliance with the order within 28 days. Judge William Alsup entered the order on March 9, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.