Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

POYNT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

INNOWI, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-05814-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 50]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal three exhibits to 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. ECF 50. No opposition was filed. For the reasons that 

follow, the motion to seal is GRANTED. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

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 

Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 56 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 

sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 

tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 

thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 

document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 

have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 

filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 

is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 

party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated compelling 

reasons to seal three exhibits to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. The proposed redactions are 

generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table 

below. 

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

50-2 Ex. B to FAC. GRANTED. Contains specific information 

regarding Plaintiff’s goals and 

requirements for the development 

project at issue, including cost 

requirements, production cycles, 

payment structures, and other 

related financial information, the 

disclosure of which could harm 

Plaintiff’s business ventures. See

Bedier Decl. ¶¶ 2–3, ECF 3-1. 

The Court previously sealed this 

exhibit. ECF 15. 

50-2 Ex. C to FAC. GRANTED. Consists of confidential draft 

agreement between the parties 

pertaining to termination of the 

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 56 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

agreement detailed in Ex. B. See

Bedier Decl. ¶ 4. Contains 

confidential technical information 

concerning Plaintiff’s products, 

disclosure of which would be 

harmful to Plaintiff. Id. The 

Court previously sealed this 

exhibit. ECF 15. 

50-2 Ex. D to FAC. GRANTED. Consists of confidential draft 

agreement between the parties 

pertaining to termination of the 

agreement detailed in Ex. B. See

Bedier Decl. ¶ 5. Contains 

confidential technical information 

concerning Plaintiff’s products, 

disclosure of which would be 

harmful to Plaintiff. Id. The 

Court previously sealed this 

exhibit. ECF 15. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal at ECF 50. 

No further action is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 56 Filed 04/10/19 Page 3 of 3