PRECISELY SOFTWARE INCORPORATED v. LOQATE INC.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-00552
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Precisely Software v. Loqate, Judge Freeman denied Precisely’s sealing motion without prejudice, allowing Loqate to support sealing narrower agreement portions.
Precisely Software Incorporated and Loqate Inc.; the ruling concerns whether portions of their agreement may be kept from public access in the court record.
What happened
In PRECISELY SOFTWARE INCORPORATED v. LOQATE INC., Precisely asked to file an agreement and addendum with its amended complaint while keeping them under seal. Loqate supported confidentiality, saying the documents contained proprietary business, pricing, and software-licensing information.
The court denied Precisely’s motion without prejudice. It found that some information could be sealed, but Loqate’s request to seal the entire 35-page agreement was too broad because much of it appeared to be standard language. Loqate may submit a new statement or declaration supporting the sealing of narrower portions.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman also ruled that Precisely did not need to file a new sealing motion and ordered Loqate to submit any additional support by June 10, 2022.
The detailed version
- PRECISELY SOFTWARE INCORPORATED v. LOQATE INC. · No. 5:22-cv-00552
- Beth Freeman
- June 2, 2022
Background
Precisely filed an administrative motion under the Northern District of California’s local sealing rule concerning an agreement and an addendum between Precisely and Loqate. Precisely intended to attach those documents as exhibits to its First Amended Complaint. The agreement was relevant to Precisely’s breach-of-contract claim.
The agreement included a confidentiality provision. Loqate supported sealing, asserting through a statement and declaration that the agreement contained proprietary information about its business practices, pricing, financial considerations, software-licensing and sublicensing terms, marketing requirements, payment terms, warranties, and support practices. Loqate also asserted that disclosure could harm its competitive position. Precisely did not oppose sealing the documents.
Court’s Analysis
Because the agreement was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court applied the higher “compelling reasons” standard for sealing judicial records. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires a sealing request to explain the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the injury from disclosure, why less restrictive alternatives are insufficient, and any necessary evidentiary support.
The court agreed that some portions of the agreement contained information that could be sealed, including confidential pricing and other proprietary business information. But Loqate sought to seal all 35 pages, while its declaration supported confidentiality for only selected sections—eight sections of the 21-part license agreement. The court concluded that much of the agreement appeared to be boilerplate, for which there was no apparent compelling reason to deny public access.
Disposition
The court denied Precisely’s administrative motion without prejudice to Loqate filing a new statement or supporting declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1) addressing narrowly tailored portions of the agreement. Precisely was not required to refile its administrative motion. Loqate was ordered to file any additional statement or declaration by June 10, 2022. Judge Beth Labson Freeman did not decide whether the entire agreement would ultimately be sealed; the ruling rejected the request as overbroad while allowing a narrower request supported by additional material.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.