Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC, No. 5:2016cv03260 - Document 423 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 395 PLAINTIFF'S SEALING MOTION; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 402 DEFENDANTS' SEALING MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/22/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 SPACE DATA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 ALPHABET INC., et al., Defendants. 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S SEALING MOTION AT ECF 395; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ SEALING MOTION AT ECF 402 [Re: ECF 395, 402] 12 Before the Court are two administrative motions to seal: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to seal 13 14 portions of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay and exhibits thereto; and (2) 15 Defendants’ motion to seal portions of its reply to its motion to stay and exhibits thereto. See ECF 16 395; ECF 402. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 17 PART each motion. 18 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 23 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 25 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 26 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 27 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 28 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by United States District Court Northern District of California 1 2 Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 3 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 4 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 5 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 6 In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 7 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 8 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 9 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 10 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 11 filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 12 declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 13 is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 14 15 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Plaintiff and Defendants’ sealing motions and the declarations of 16 the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have 17 articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed 18 redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set 19 forth in the tables below. 20 21 22 23 A. ECF 395 (Plaintiff’s Motion) ECF Document to be Sealed: No. Result 395-14 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at 7:15-18; 7:20-21; 7:24-27; 8:1-2. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 398-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 395-15 Exhibit 4 DENIED. Defendants, the designating party, do not seek to seal any portion of 24 25 26 27 Reasoning 28 2 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result 2 this document. See Defendants’ Response at 1–2, ECF 398. 3 4 395-16 Exhibit 6 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 398-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 395-17 Exhibit 7 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 398-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 395-18 Exhibit 9 GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at 704:1-7; 704:21-22; 705:21; 705:23-25. Contains information related to confidential business discussion with third parties. Knoblach Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 395-2. Disclosure of this information may cause economic harm to Plaintiff and harm Plaintiff’s relationships with third parties. Id. ¶ 10. 395-19 Exhibit 10 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 398-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 395-20 Exhibit 11 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to confidential customer contracts Knoblach Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 395-2. Disclosure of this information may cause economic harm to Plaintiff and harm Plaintiff’s relationships with third parties. Id. ¶ 10. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reasoning 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result 395-21 Exhibit 12 GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at 207:1-20. Contains information related to confidential customer conversations. Knoblach Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 395-2. Disclosure of this information may cause economic harm to Plaintiff and harm Plaintiff’s relationships with third parties. Id. ¶ 10. 395-22 Exhibit 13 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 398-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 395-23 Exhibit 14 GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to potential partnership agreement with a third party. Knoblach Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 395-2. Disclosure of this information may cause economic harm to Plaintiff and harm Plaintiff’s relationships with third parties. Id. ¶ 10. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Reasoning B. ECF 402 (Defendants’ Motion) ECF Document to be Sealed: Result No. 402-4 Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay GRANTED as to the highlighted portions at 4:21-22; 4:24; 5:4; 5:6-7; 5:13. 22 23 24 Reasoning Portions at 5:6-7 contain information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 402-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. Portions at 4:21-22; 4:24; 5:4; 5:13 contain information related to Plaintiff’s confidential conversations with third parties or Plaintiff’s confidential business strategy. Ritchie Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 405-1. Disclosure of this 25 26 27 28 4 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result 2 Reasoning information may cause serious economic injury to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. 3 4 5 DENIED as to the remainder. Plaintiff, the designating party for the remainder, does not seek to seal the remainder. See Plaintiff’s Response at 1, ECF 405. GRANTED as to the portions marked by Plaintiff, the designating party, at 120:20-22. Contains information related to Plaintiff’s confidential business strategy. Ritchie Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 405-1. Disclosure of this information may cause serious economic injury to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. DENIED as to the remainder. Plaintiff, the designating party for the remainder, does not seek to seal the remainder. See Plaintiff’s Response at 1, ECF 405. GRANTED as to the portions marked by Plaintiff, the designating party, at 133:6-8; 133:16-18; 133:22-23; 169:14; 169:18-20; 169:23; 169:25; 170:4-6; 170:13; 170:16-22; 239:4-7; 239:18-25; 240:1; 240:13-16; 240:19-125. Contains information related to Plaintiff’s confidential customer contracts. Ritchie Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 405-1. Disclosure of this information may cause serious economic injury to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. DENIED as to the remainder. Plaintiff, the designating party for the remainder, does not seek to seal the remainder. See Plaintiff’s Response at 1, ECF 405. 6 7 402-5 8 Exhibit F to Pransky Reply Decl. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 402-6 15 Exhibit G to Pransky Reply Decl. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 402-7 Exhibit H to Pransky Reply Decl. DENIED. Plaintiff, the designating party, does not seek to seal any portion of this document. See Plaintiff’s Response at 1, ECF 405. 402-8 Exhibit I to Pransky Reply Decl. GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and 25 26 27 28 5 1 ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result 2 strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 402-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. 3 4 5 402-9 6 Exhibit J to Pransky Reply Decl. GRANTED as to the entire exhibit. Contains information related to Defendants’ confidential technology, business plans and strategy. Yaghmour Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 402-1. Disclosure of this information may have significant negative effects on Defendants’ business. Id. ¶ 6. GRANTED as to the portions marked by Plaintiff, the designating party, at 677:10-13; 677:15-19. Contains information related to Plaintiff’s confidential business strategy. Ritchie Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 405-1. Disclosure of this information may cause serious economic injury to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 10. DENIED as to the remainder. Plaintiff, the designating party for the remainder, does not seek to seal the remainder. See Plaintiff’s Response at 1, ECF 405. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Reasoning 402-10 Exhibit K to Pransky Reply Decl. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing motion at ECF 395 and Defendants’ sealing motion at ECF 402 are each GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For any request that has been denied in whole or in part, if the designating party has not already publicly submitted the properly redacted version of the documents, the submitting party shall file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 22, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
