Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04980-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

IN RE YAHOO MAIL LITIGATION

Case No. 13-cv-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 113

Before the Court is Defendant’s renewed administrative motion to seal, ECF No. 113. The 

Court denied without prejudice portions of Defendant’s prior sealing motion filed in connection 

with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See ECF No. 108. 

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 117 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when 

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions 

include “motions for summary judgment.” Id.

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” 

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause” 

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not 

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

In general, motions for class certification are considered nondispositive. See In re HighTech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 

2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the Court finds 

that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”).

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 117 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing 

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

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

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the 

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document 

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “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.” 

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to Defendant’s request to seal 

documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. With this standard in 

mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 117 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

113 Good

Cause

Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 16

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 20

DENIED as to the first two paragraphs of the 

email sent by Amir Doron on 9/21/2011 at 

11:22 a.m., with the exception of the 

technology name in the second and fourth 

sentences.

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 32

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 33

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 34

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 35

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 37

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113 Good 

Cause

Shue Deposition Transcript GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 70:12-13

 76:2-16

 112:6

 164:15-18

 172:21-22

 175:5-7

 178:16 (technology name only), 24

(same)

Otherwise DENIED with prejudice.

113 Good 

cause

Day Deposition Transcript GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 117 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 117 Filed 06/08/15 Page 5 of 5