Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814-3/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 73]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal a small portion of an 

exhibit to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 53-5). ECF 73. For the reasons stated below, the 

motion 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 76 Filed 08/01/19 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 its declaration in support thereof. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated compelling reasons to seal the requested portion of 

the submitted document. The proposed redaction is narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the 

sealing request is set forth below:

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 76 Filed 08/01/19 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 Document Portion(s) 

to Seal

Result Reason(s) for Sealing

53-5 Exhibit 4 to the

Declaration of 

Luc

Dahlin In 

Support of

Defendant 

Innowi, Inc.’s

Motion to 

Dismiss

Pursuant to 

F.R.C.P.

12(b)(6) and 

Motion to Strike 

Pursuant to

F.R.C.P. 12(f) 

8:5-8 GRANTED. The document contains a list 

of third parties to whom 

Poynt has disclosed one or 

more of its trade secrets. 

This list reveals the identity 

of certain entities with 

whom Poynt has 

collaborated. The fact of 

that collaboration is not 

public knowledge and is, in 

many cases, covered by 

NonDisclosure Agreements. 

The publication of this 

information would be 

harmful to Poynt as it would 

permit Poynt’s competitors 

and/or others access to 

information about its 

collaborators and potential 

collaborators, and thereby 

gain an unfair competitive 

advantage in developing 

competing products. Tanaka 

Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF 73-1.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 73 is GRANTED. Defendant shall 

file a properly redacted version of the document consistent with this order into the public record 

no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 76 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 3