Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401-16/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

RITCHIE PHILLIPS, dba R&D COMPUTERS

Plaintiff,

v.

NETBLUE, INC., formerly known as

YFDIRECT, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-4401 SC

ORDER DENYING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO FILE CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Pending before the Court is a Motion by Defendants Netblue,

Inc., formerly known as YFDirect, Inc., et al. ("Defendants") to

Dismiss Complaint for Plaintiff's Failure to Preserve Evidence. 

See Docket No. 143. In conjunction with its Opposition to this

Motion, Plaintiff Ritchie Phillips, dba R&D Computers

("Plaintiff") has filed an Administrative Motion to File Certain

Documents Under Seal. See Docket No. 154, Motion to File Under

Seal. The documents are:

Exhibit I: (page 144 only) Deposition transcript of

Derek Pilch; Exhibit O: emails between Netblue's Abuse and ISP

Manager, Netblue's ISP vendors, and

representatives of SPAMHAUS provided to

Plaintiff's [sic] by Defendants: NET

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 173 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

5527-5529; 5566-5568[;]

Exhibit Q: page 30 of the Deposition transcript of

Kenneth Chan; and 

Exhibit R: page 11 and 12 of the Deposition

transcript of Scott Rewick. 

Id. at 2. Plaintiff's declaration submitted with its Motion

states without argument that the above listed exhibits "have been

designated confidential by Defendants and are protected by the

Protective Order approved by the Court." Declaration of Richard

E. Grabowski ("Grabowski Decl.") at 1. Defendants have submitted

nothing to the Court regarding the documents.

Civil Local Rule 79-5 states: "A sealing order may issue

only upon a request that establishes that the document, or

portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret

or otherwise protectable under the law." Thus, the parties bear

the burden of explaining to the Court why something should be

sealed. Furthermore, as the Commentary to Rule 79-5 makes clear,

there is a strong presumption against sealing documents from

public view. See Commentary to Local Rule 79-5 ("As a public

forum, the Court has a policy of providing to the public full

access to papers filed in the Office of the Clerk."). 

The parties have not met the necessary burden to overcome

this presumption as to any of the submitted documents. Exhibit I

deals with business practices at a level of generality that is far

too broad for its substance to be considered a trade secret,

especially given the lack of any argument on the issue by the

parties. See Grobowski Decl., Ex. I. Exhibit O consists almost

entirely of emails between Netblue and a third party which is, for

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 173 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

the most part, hostile to Netblue. See id., Ex. O. It therefore

cannot be maintained that Exhibit O contains information that is

secret or confidential. Exhibit Q deals with the identity of

investors in a company called WebJuice. See id., Ex. Q. The

Court is mystified as to the basis for any claim of

confidentiality regarding this information. Exhibit R deals with

Netblue's general business practices and the identity of

WebJuice's Owners. See id., Ex. R. None of this information

constitutes a business secret or protectable confidential

information under the law.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Certain Documents Under

Seal is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2007 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 173 Filed 01/12/07 Page 3 of 3