WalkMe Ltd., an Israeli company v. Whatfix, Inc., a Delaware corporation
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-03991
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In WalkMe v. Whatfix, Judge White granted some sealing requests, denied one without prejudice, and granted another in part while denying part without prejudice.
WalkMe Ltd. and the other plaintiffs seeking to seal portions of their Second Amended Complaint and exhibits; Whatfix, Inc. and the other defendants who opposed some sealing requests; and the public, whose access to specified court records was limited or preserved.
What happened
WalkMe Ltd. and other plaintiffs asked to seal portions of their Second Amended Complaint and exhibits. Whatfix, Inc. and other defendants opposed some requests, arguing that certain information was already public and that plaintiffs had not provided enough support.
The court applied the strong presumption that court records should be public and required compelling reasons for sealing. It granted requests covering customer names and specified material in paragraphs 57(a)(iv) and 68. It denied the request for paragraph 58 without prejudice and granted the request for paragraph 73 in part, while denying it without prejudice as to line 22 and the first word of line 23.
Judge Jeffrey White ordered that material denied without prejudice remain redacted while plaintiffs either submit a further declaration supporting sealing or withdraw the redactions. Plaintiffs had to file that declaration or notice by May 10, 2024.
The detailed version
- WalkMe Ltd., an Israeli company v. Whatfix, Inc., a Delaware corporation · No. 4:23-cv-03991
- Jeffrey White
- May 3, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their Second Amended Complaint and its exhibits. The defendants opposed the motion in part and argued that the attorney declaration supporting it did not adequately show that the documents could be sealed. Because the defendants contended that some information had already been publicly disclosed, the court ordered a reply. The plaintiffs withdrew some requests and submitted employee declarations in support of the remaining requests.
Legal standard
The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Under the local rules, a sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only material eligible for sealing. The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires a strong justification for sealing material connected to a dispositive filing. The court noted that protecting trade secrets can qualify as a compelling reason, but it did not decide whether the material described by the plaintiffs actually constituted trade secrets.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- It granted the request to seal customer names, including the information in paragraphs 80 through 84 of the Second Amended Complaint and related references in Exhibit B. - It granted the request concerning paragraph 57(a)(iv). - It denied without prejudice the request concerning paragraph 58 because it was not clear that the information concerned a particular new customer use case for WalkMe’s services. - It granted the request concerning paragraph 68 and related redactions in Exhibit B, as described in the Hoffman Declaration. - It granted in part the request concerning paragraph 73 and related redactions in Exhibit B. It denied without prejudice that request as to line 22 and the first word of line 23 because those portions had not previously been redacted.
Further filing
For material covered by a denial without prejudice, the court ordered that the material remain redacted while the plaintiffs submitted a further declaration showing why it should be sealed or filed a notice withdrawing the redactions. The deadline was May 10, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying claims or whether the alleged confidential information was legally a trade secret.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.