Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02744-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1 

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CLEAR-VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JOHN H. RASNICK, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL 

(Re: Docket No. 126) 

 Before the court is an administrative motion to seal seven documents. “Historically, courts 

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’”1

 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2

 Parties seeking to seal judicial records 

 

1 Kamakana v. City & County 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)). 

2 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 144 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling 

reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3

 However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 

to the strong presumption of access.5

 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).6 As with dispositive motions, the 

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7

 that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order 

sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good 

cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to 

designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether 

each particular document should remain sealed.11

 

3 Id. at 1178-79. 

4 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

5 See id. at 1180. 

6 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

7 Id.

8 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

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

10 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 

11 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to 

designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or 

portions thereof, are sealable.”). 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 144 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must 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 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).”12 “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.”13

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows: 

Motion Document to be Sealed Result Reason/Explanation

Docket No. 

126-4 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions and Costs 

All portions indicated 

UNSEALED, except 19:13-15 

SEALED. 

Only sealed portions

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

Docket No. 

126-6 

Declaration of Doug 

Tilley in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions and Costs

Portions indicated in Docket 

No. 126-5 UNSEALED. 

Not narrowly tailored 

to confidential 

business information. 

Docket No. 

126-16 

Exhibit DD to the 

Declaration of Doug 

Tilley in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions and Costs

SEALED. Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information. 

Docket No. 

126-8 

Exhibit I to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions 

Portions highlighted in yellow 

UNSEALED. 

No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No. 

126-10 

Exhibit J to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions 

Portions highlighted in yellow 

UNSEALED. 

No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No. 

126-12 

Exhibit K to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions 

Portions highlighted in yellow 

UNSEALED. 

No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by

 

12 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 

“unreadacted 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). 

13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 144 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

Case No.: 5:13-cv-02744-BLF 

ORDER RE: 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 

For the Northern District of California 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No. 

126-14 

Exhibit L to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions 

Portions highlighted in yellow 

UNSEALED. 

No declaration in 

support filed with the 

court as required by 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

PAUL S. GREWAL 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:13-cv-02744-BLF Document 144 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 4