MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Nature of the order

This omnibus order resolved the remaining administrative motions to seal, identified by docket numbers 372, 380, 384, 388, 391, 393, 406, 413, 417, and 420. A motion to seal asks the court to restrict public access to a filing or part of a filing.

The court explained that judicial records more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Records only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed on a showing of “good cause.” Under the district’s local rule, a sealing request must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the harm from disclosure, and why a less restrictive option would not work. The request must be narrowly tailored, and supporting declarations must explain the claimed harm specifically rather than rely on general statements or a protective order.

Requests related to Amazon’s summary-judgment motion

The court found that the information in these filings concerned Amazon’s system, which was central to the case. It also noted that Amazon had publicly disclosed some of the information during the hearing. The court therefore denied the requests for Dkt. Nos. 372-4, 380-2, 380-4, 384-3, 384-4, 384-5, 384-6, 384-7, 384-8, 384-9, 384-10, 384-11, 384-12, 388-2, 388-4, 388-6, and 388-8. The stated reasons included inadequate explanations of competitive harm, failure to identify trade secrets, requests covering non-sealable material, and—regarding some materials—the fact that MasterObjects did not seek confidentiality.

The court denied without prejudice the requests for Dkt. Nos. 380-6 and 380-10. Those requests were overbroad or concerned detailed material that might contain confidential information, but Amazon was allowed to submit revised requests within 14 days that specifically justified sealing any information that remained confidential.

For Dkt. No. 380-8, the court granted in part and denied in part the request. It allowed sealing of the names of classes in Amazon’s source code at page 10, lines 3 and 5, but denied the request as to the rest of the document.

Other requests

The court granted the sealing requests for the listed filings associated with Amazon’s motion to strike Expert Latham’s opinion. It reasoned that the court had not ruled on that motion before the litigation ended, so the public interest in those materials was minimal.

For supplemental summary-judgment filings, the court granted the request for Dkt. No. 417-2 because it concerned detailed technical information, including source code and descriptive source-code file names and paths, whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also granted the request for Dkt. No. 420-7 because the request was narrowly tailored and concerned detailed technical information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. The court denied the requests for Dkt. Nos. 420-4, 420-9, and 420-11 because Amazon did not seek to keep the material confidential and no justification for sealing was provided.

Disposition

The court concluded that the motions were granted in part and denied in part. Amazon could submit revised sealing requests for Dkt. Nos. 380-6 and 380-10 within 14 days. The court ordered all other documents to be refiled in full compliance with the order by April 10, 2023, at 12:00 p.m.