Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation

Background

Defendants filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibits A through Y to the declaration of Richard de Bodo, which supported Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court considered the request under Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the Ninth Circuit’s rule that most judicial records carry a strong presumption of public access.

Because the exhibits were connected to a dispositive motion, Defendants had to show “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s right to access court records. They also had to request sealing narrowly and establish that the documents, or specific portions, were privileged, protected as trade secrets, or otherwise legally entitled to protection.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Defendants’ motion did not satisfy those requirements in several respects. First, Defendants sought to seal documents that Plaintiffs had designated confidential. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), a request to seal another party’s confidential material must be made in a separate administrative motion addressing whether that material should be sealed. The court therefore stated that Defendants must file a separate motion for those documents.

Second, as to the remaining materials, Defendants sought to seal 25 exhibits together without explaining how each individual document met the compelling-reasons standard. The court found that broad statements that the exhibits contained negotiated terms, financial and funding information, and product or project strategy were insufficient. The court also found that a declaration stating that certain documents were confidential information or trade secrets did not establish that the documents were sealable. A protective order or confidentiality designation alone was not enough.

Third, the court found that the request was not narrowly tailored. Defendants had not explained why certain information, including identified business information and the link-sharing history of a specified file, satisfied the compelling-reasons standard.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ administrative motion to seal. It ordered Defendants to file, within seven days, a separate administrative motion addressing documents designated confidential by Plaintiffs. Defendants may also file, within seven days, a renewed motion seeking to seal portions of the remaining exhibits. Any renewed motion must comply with the local rules and the court’s standing orders, be limited to documents or portions that satisfy the compelling-reasons standard, and explain why the requested materials meet that standard.