Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01045
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Judge Freeman granted one sealing motion in part and denied it in part, while denying four other sealing motions.
Bold Limited, Rocket Resume, Inc., Stephen Zimmerman, and third party Jeffrey Stone were affected by the sealing rulings and the opportunities to file renewed supporting statements, declarations, or narrower redactions within 10 days.
What happened
Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. concerns requests to keep parts of filings about Bold’s motion to disqualify counsel from public view. The court considered five sealing-related motions involving the parties’ filings and materials designated confidential by Rocket Resume, Stephen Zimmerman, and Jeffrey Stone.
The court applied a “good cause” standard because a motion to disqualify counsel is only indirectly related to the case’s merits. It found that some information about Bold’s business, transactions, corporate structure, and finances could be sealed because disclosure could cause competitive harm, but it also required requests to be limited to only the information that needed protection.
Judge Freeman denied four motions, including several because the required supporting statements were not filed or because the requests covered too much material. She granted Bold’s motion to file under seal in part and denied it in part; the denials were without prejudice where the order expressly said the relevant party could submit a supporting statement or a narrower request.
The detailed version
- Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-01045
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
The parties filed sealing motions concerning briefing on Bold Limited’s motion to disqualify Alston & Bird LLP. The court held that such a motion is only tangentially related to the merits of the case, so the filings could be sealed upon a showing of “good cause,” rather than the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard. The court also required compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including supporting statements or declarations and requests narrowly limited to sealable material.
Rulings on the Motions
1. ECF No. 130 — Bold’s motion concerning Rocket Resume and Stephen Zimmerman’s confidential designations: The court denied the requests to seal portions of Bold’s motion to disqualify counsel, the specified portion of the Elliott Declaration, and Exhibits B and D to that declaration. The requests failed to comply with the rule requiring Rocket Resume and Zimmerman, as the designating parties, to file a supporting statement or declaration. The denials were without prejudice to those defendants filing the required support. They could do so within 10 days of the order.
2. ECF No. 131 — Bold’s motion concerning Jeffrey Stone’s confidential designation: The court denied the request to seal the entire Exhibit C to the Elliott Declaration because Stone had not filed the required supporting statement or declaration. The denial was without prejudice to Stone filing that support within 10 days.
3. Bold’s motion to file materials under seal in connection with its motion to disqualify counsel, identified in the order as ECF No. 131 and addressing materials listed under ECF Nos. 132-3 through 132-9: The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It granted requests to seal specified portions of Bold’s motion and the Lopez and Elliott Declarations, as well as all of Exhibits A and B to the Lopez Declaration and Exhibit H to the Elliott Declaration. The court found that these materials contained non-public information about Bold’s corporate structure and business transactions whose release could cause competitive harm. It denied the request to seal all of Exhibit K because that request was not narrowly tailored. That denial was without prejudice to Bold filing a renewed motion with narrower redactions within 10 days.
4. ECF No. 155 — Rocket Resume and Zimmerman’s motion concerning Bold’s material: The court denied the request to seal all of Exhibit C to the Cox Declaration. Although some information about Bold’s business transactions and business model could qualify for sealing, sealing the entire document was not narrowly tailored. The denial was without prejudice to Bold submitting a renewed statement or declaration with narrow redactions within 10 days.
5. ECF No. 163 — Bold’s motion concerning Rocket Resume and Zimmerman’s confidential designations in Bold’s reply: The court denied the requests to seal the Elliott Reply Declaration and its Exhibit A because Rocket Resume and Zimmerman had not filed the required supporting statement or declaration. The denials were without prejudice to those defendants filing the required support within 10 days.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved only the sealing motions addressed in it. It did not decide Bold’s underlying motion to disqualify counsel. The court’s rulings allowed certain narrowly identified business materials to remain sealed while leaving open the possibility of renewed, properly supported or more narrowly tailored sealing requests.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.