Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC

Background

The court considered Amazon’s administrative motions asking whether materials designated confidential by other parties or non-parties should remain under seal. The materials were connected to two filings concerning Amazon’s motion to compel production of documents that the PersonalWeb investors allegedly withheld as privileged.

The documents had been designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential” by non-party investors in PersonalWeb under the case’s amended protective order. The relevant designating parties were Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Monto Holdings, Europlay Capital Advisors, and Claria Innovations. Brilliant Digital Entertainment had not filed the required statement or declaration for the motion at Docket 859. The Investors filed a response to the motion at Docket 863, arguing that responding to each provisionally sealed document within the rule’s deadline was overly burdensome.

Legal standard

The court explained that Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires a party seeking to keep another party’s or non-party’s designated material under seal to provide a specific legal standard and reasons for sealing. Those reasons must address the legitimate private or public interests supporting secrecy, the injury that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not suffice. The party must also provide evidentiary support when necessary and submit a narrowly tailored proposed order identifying the specific documents or portions to be sealed.

Because the materials were attached to discovery-related, non-dispositive motions, the party seeking sealing had to show “good cause” to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial records. The court rejected the argument that a protective-order designation by itself established good cause. It noted that the amended protective order expressly stated that it did not provide blanket protection and that Civil Local Rule 79-5 procedures and standards still applied.

Court’s action

The court declined the Investors’ request to avoid a document-by-document assessment and focus instead on the underlying motion to compel. Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the Investors to file the statements or declarations required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) no later than April 27, 2023. The order states that failure to meet that deadline would result in denial of the motions to seal without further notice to the Investors or other parties. The opinion did not itself grant or deny the motions to seal at that time.