Shande v. Zoox, Inc.

Background

Tavershima Shande sued Zoox, Inc. over rights to digital street scenery that Shande created while employed by Zoox as a Staff Technical Artist. Shande alleged that he created the material separately from his work at Zoox, without using Zoox’s proprietary materials or equipment, and that he had the right to sell it. His claims included declaratory relief, copyright infringement, interference with contract, and related claims.

Zoox moved to seal an Employee Proprietary Information and Invention Assignment Agreement that it submitted in support of its motion to dismiss and anti-SLAPP motion. Shande opposed sealing the agreement. Zoox argued that public disclosure could put it at a competitive disadvantage, relying on a declaration from its litigation counsel stating that its employee agreements were sensitive and confidential.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that filings more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Because the agreement supported motions addressing the merits of Shande’s claims, that stricter standard applied. A party seeking to seal a document must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, explain the injury from disclosure, and show why a narrower alternative would not work.

The court found that Zoox’s evidence did not meet that standard. The agreement appeared to be a form contract, and most or all of its language appeared to be boilerplate. Zoox’s counsel offered conclusory statements without a factual basis showing that the agreement was highly sensitive or confidential. The court also noted that vague claims that competitors could use contract information to compete unfairly are insufficient. Shande stated that Zoox had sent him the agreement with his job offer without indicating that it was confidential, and that no one at Zoox had told him it could not be shared.

Ruling

The court denied Zoox’s motion to seal without prejudice. Within seven days after the order, Zoox was required to file the agreement on the public docket, file a renewed and more narrowly tailored sealing motion, or advise the court that the agreement was withdrawn and would not be considered. The order terminated ECF 31.