Mozzone v. Salesforce.com, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-03532
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mozzone v. Salesforce.com, Inc., Judge Donato granted Salesforce’s motion to seal limited portions of four paragraphs containing proprietary business information.
Salesforce.com, Inc., the parties to the case, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed court materials.
What happened
In Mozzone v. Salesforce.com, Inc., Salesforce.com, Inc. asked the court to seal limited portions of four paragraphs in a filing. The request was unopposed.
The court explained that court records are generally public and that a party seeking to seal a complaint must provide specific facts showing compelling reasons for secrecy. It found that Salesforce had provided facts indicating the material concerned proprietary information about client relationships, sales, and compensation structure, and granted the motion.
Judge James Donato said the sealing decision was interlocutory, meaning the court could later unseal the materials if warranted as the case continued.
The detailed version
- Mozzone v. Salesforce.com, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-03532
- James Donato
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Salesforce.com, Inc. filed an unopposed motion to seal limited portions of four paragraphs in a case filing. The opinion identifies the information as relating to Salesforce’s client relationships, sales, and compensation structure.
Legal Standard
The court applied the general presumption that judicial records are public and that the public is entitled to access them. A party seeking to seal a complaint must show compelling reasons, supported by specific facts, that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. The court stated that general assertions of possible competitive or commercial harm are insufficient. It also said that a confidentiality designation under a stipulated protective order, by itself, does not justify sealing.
Ruling
The court found that the information to be sealed was relatively limited and that Salesforce had provided facts indicating it concerned proprietary information about client relationships, sales, and compensation structure. The court granted the motion to seal. Judge James Donato stated that the decision was interlocutory, so the court could unseal the materials later if warranted.
Disposition
The motion to seal was granted. The order did not state that the case itself was dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.