Mobileum Inc. v. Kibott SARL

Background

Mobileum filed an amended administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of its complaint and related exhibits, along with portions of two exhibits attached to Amal El Bakhar’s declaration supporting Mobileum’s request for entry of default against defendants. The court had previously denied Mobileum’s broader sealing requests because they covered large portions of the complaint and entire exhibits. The court directed Mobileum either to file unredacted versions or submit revised, more narrowly tailored and better-supported sealing motions.

Mobileum filed the amended motion on November 30, 2023. The motion sought to redact information concerning the installation and operation of Mobileum’s proprietary software platform, the names of particular customers and end-users, and customer-specific terms. Mobileum argued that competitors or customers could use that information to harm its business interests.

Legal standard

The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the materials were closely connected to the underlying case, including the complaint, which the court described as the foundation of a lawsuit. That standard requires the party seeking secrecy to identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s general right to inspect judicial records. The court also considered whether the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and whether less restrictive alternatives would be sufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Mobileum had significantly reduced the proposed redactions and limited them to sensitive business information rather than ordinary factual allegations. It concluded that disclosure could allow competitors to undercut Mobileum or allow potential customers to seek more favorable negotiating terms. The court further found that the public interest in complete disclosure was reduced because the parties resolved the dispute and the court had not relied on the materials in a judicial proceeding or substantive ruling.

The court separately agreed that the French translation of the complaint could be sealed in full. The English version of the complaint and Exhibits A through D would disclose the information the public was entitled to see, and the court had not considered the French translation because the related request for entry of default was withdrawn before the court ruled on it.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Mobileum’s amended administrative motion to seal. The order approved the proposed redactions to the complaint and the identified exhibits, including Exhibits A through D to the complaint and Exhibit 1 to the declaration. It also ordered Exhibit 4 to the declaration—the French translation of the complaint—to remain entirely under seal.