Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-06879
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Palantir v. Abramowitz, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part Palantir’s sealing motions and denied Abramowitz’s sealing motion.
Palantir Technologies Inc. and Marc L. Abramowitz, whose filed materials were subject to the sealing rulings; the public was affected by which portions would remain sealed or become available.
What happened
In Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz, the court considered four requests to keep materials connected to Abramowitz’s summary-judgment motion from public view. Three requests concerned Palantir’s information, and one concerned Abramowitz’s information.
The court found compelling reasons to protect Palantir’s trade secrets, confidential work for clients, and information about a third party’s investments and income. It also found that the portions Palantir wanted to keep private were narrowly limited.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the requests involving Palantir’s information, denied the request involving Abramowitz’s information, and ordered Palantir to file public versions of the documents within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz · No. 5:19-cv-06879
- Beth Freeman
- July 15, 2022
Background
The court addressed four administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with Marc L. Abramowitz’s motion for summary judgment. Three motions concerned information designated by Palantir as confidential, and one concerned information designated by Abramowitz.
Legal standard
The court explained that court filings are generally available for public inspection. Materials more than indirectly related to the merits of a case may be sealed only when the party seeking secrecy shows compelling reasons. Any sealing request must also be narrowly tailored to cover only material that can properly be kept private. The court described the Northern District of California’s procedures for requests involving a party’s own information and requests involving information another party designated as confidential.
Rulings on Palantir’s information
Palantir’s information generally fell into three categories: confidential trade-secret information, confidential work for third-party clients, and information about a third party’s investments and income. The court noted that it had previously sealed the first two types of information in this case. It found compelling reasons to seal the third party’s investment and income information because disclosure threatened that person’s privacy and competitive interests. The court also found that Palantir had appropriately narrowed the material it sought to keep sealed and that the requested sealing was narrowly tailored.
The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the administrative motions concerning Palantir’s information. It listed specific portions of deposition transcripts, emails, interrogatory responses, and Palantir’s opposition brief that were to remain sealed. Palantir was ordered to file public, redacted versions of those documents within 14 days and public, unredacted versions of documents for which it had not sought to seal any material.
Ruling on Abramowitz’s information
Abramowitz stated that he did not seek to keep the designated materials under seal. In light of that statement, the court denied the motion to seal Abramowitz’s information. Palantir was ordered to file public, unredacted versions of documents containing that information within 14 days.
Disposition
The court ordered that the parties’ sealing motions were granted in part and denied in part according to the specific rulings in the order. The order concerned access to filed materials and did not decide the merits of Abramowitz’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.