Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01376-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUCCESSFACTORS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SOFTSCAPE, INC.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-1376 CW (BZ)

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION FOR RELIEF TO SEAL

AND SCHEDULING SHOW CAUSE

HEARING

On July 30, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. 

The following day, plaintiff filed a motion for administrative

relief to file under seal portions of exhibits filed in

support of its motion to compel that defendant designated as

confidential under the protective order and portions of its

brief that referred to the exhibits that defendant designated. 

On August 6, 2008, defendant filed a declaration in support of

the administrative motion . 

The Local Rules provide that 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 otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . .” 

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 7
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

N.D. Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “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.” Id. at Commentary. A request to

seal must be “narrowly tailored” in order ensure that a copy

of the document is “available for public review that has the

minimum redactions necessary to protect sealable information.” 

Id. and 79-5(a). When a party files a document designated

confidential by another party, the burden shifts to the

designating party to file a “declaration establishing that the

designated information is sealable, and lodge and serve a

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or [it] must

withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” Id. at 79-5(d). 

A “‘particularized showing,’ [] under the ‘good cause’

standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving

the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to

non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) quoting Foltz v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 & 1138

(9th Cir. 2003). When “good cause” is established, “the court

in which the action is pending may make any order which

justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue expense or burden,

including ... that a trade secret or other confidential

research, development, or commercial information not be

revealed or be revealed only in a designated way.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c). “Under Rule 26(c), ‘the party asserting good

cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks

to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 7
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

result if no protective order is granted.’” Contratto v.

Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307 (N.D. Cal. 2005) quoting

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “Where a business is the party

seeking protection, it will have to show that disclosure would

cause significant harm to its competitive and financial

position. That showing requires specific demonstrations of

fact, supported where possible by affidavits and concrete

examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of harm.” 

Contratto, 227 F.R.D. at 307 - 08.

Defense counsel’s declaration to establish that the

designated information is sealable is not sufficient to

support granting the administrative motion. Nor is the

proposed order narrowly tailored as required by Local Rule 79-

5(d). Defense counsel merely makes blanket assertions that

large portions of the exhibits should be sealed. For example,

defense counsel asserts that the designated materials contain

discussion of “confidential internal marketing information and

competitive strategies” and contain defendant’s internal

“employment information the disclosure of which could create a

substantial risk of competitive harm” to defendant without

making a particularized showing as to why defendant would

suffer harm if the materials were not sealed. See e.g.

Sinclair Decl. at ¶ 5. Defendant also argues that information

about “acts involving a competitor” and testimony regarding

non-party’s documents or employees that it “would not normally

reveal to third parties except in confidence” should be

sealed. See e.g. Id. at ¶¶ 6 - 9. However, defendant fails

to set specifically demonstrate how disclosure would harm

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 7
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

4

defendant or the non-parties. 

Defendant requests that lines 238:4 - 14 of the 5/29/08

and lines 282:1 - 285:15 of the 5/20/08 of the Watkins’

transcript because the “information has previously been

ordered sealed in the Joint Case Management Conference

Statement” by Judge Wilken and because it contains information

regarding acts of a competitor. However, Judge Wilken’s June

30, 2008 order only required that portions of 5 lines of the

statement be sealed. Having reviewed the approximately 5

pages of deposition testimony defendant requests to seal, it

is evident that its request is excessive. 

After reviewing the motion to compel and its supporting

exhibits, it is apparent that there is not “good cause” to

seal the vast majority of the materials defendant has

designated. An example reflecting that defendant’s excessive

designation includes a portion of the Watkins’ deposition

transcript that defendant contends contains “confidential

internal marketing information and competitive strategies”

(Sinclair Decl. at ¶ 5).

A. He’s responsible for strategic territory

development.

Q. What does that mean?

A. It means he’s working on strategic

territories.

Q. What territories are those?

Mr. Davids: Objection Do you want to know the

specific territories or just generally what

his job entails?

A. The strategic ones.

Q. Which ones?

Mr. Davids: Objection.

A. The ones that are strategic.

Q. Can you tell me, please, what he’s working on

now?

A. What I call strategic.

Q. Does he have the New York area?

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 4 of 7
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 1 The first response appears to contain only

objections and no confidential information. 

5

Watkins Depo. 5/30/08, lines 360:7 - 24. Another example from

the Watkins’ deposition includes defendant’s designation of

the following testimony as confidential because it “discloses

information relating to internal operational information and

communications between Softscape employees and Softscape”

(Sinclair Decl. at ¶ 10).

A. In 2008?

Q. Correct.

A. I do not recall what I may have done in

2008.

Q. Were there changes made to the appearance

of the website?

A. I don’t – -

Q. I don’t recall specifically logging in and

making changes to the appearance. I don’t

recall.

Q. Were there changes to the appearance of

the website? . . . 

Q. Does anyone other than you have

responsibility for the New Millennium Shoe

website?

A. No.

Watkins Depo. 5/29/08, lines 234:1 - 12 & 22 - 24. 

Defendant also designated its responses1 and amended

responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories as

confidential, in their entirety. It contends the responses

contain information that it would not normally reveal to third

parties, without explaining how it would be harmed if the

responses were not sealed. Defendant also contends the

responses should be sealed because they contain facts and

information about the presentation at issue in this lawsuit

that plaintiff has designated as confidential. Plaintiff’s

declaration in support of the sealing order did not state that

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 5 of 7
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

6

it designated all information and facts regarding the

presentation as confidential. Furthermore, designating the

responses in their entirety as confidential is excessive. 

Similarly, defendant argues that certain emails and

correspondence between counsel should be sealed in their

entirety, rather than designating the portions that might

contain confidential or proprietary information. Another

example of excessive designation is the request to seal

exhibit 29, instead of just requesting that the telephone

numbers contained in the exhibit be sealed.

Defendant also requests that I seal all references in the

brief in support of the motion to compel that refer, in way,

to the documents it has excessively designated as confidential

resulting in absurd requests to seal. For example, defendant

requests sealing a portion of a sentence in the motion to

compel accusing it of producing only a “paltry number” of

versions of a presentation at issue. The portion of the

sentence only sets forth plaintiff’s grounds for bringing the

motion to compel without reflecting confidential information. 

Defendant also requests that the entire Watkins’ Declaration

initially filed on March 26, 2008 be sealed, when only

portions of the declaration were filed under seal originally. 

The examples set forth supra are not an exhaustive

representation of the defendant’s abuse of the confidentiality

designation requirements. The court finds no need for

argument. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal is

DENIED. 

In light of defense counsel’s disregard for the Local

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Rules, which caused the court to spend an inordinate amount of

time on this administrative motion, the imposition of

sanctions on counsel appears warranted. Civil Local Rule 1-4

provides that “[f]ailure by counsel or a party to comply with

any duly promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a

ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.” See also

MEMC Elec. Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.,

No. C01-4925 SBA, 2004 WL 5363616, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 4,

2004). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant and its

counsel shall show cause on Wednesday, September 3, 2008, at

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, why

sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(f) and Civil L.R. 1-4. If they wish to avoid the

hearing, they may contribute $500.00 to St. Anthony’s Dining

Room, 121 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 or Glide

Memorial Church Food Program, 330 Ellis, San Francisco, CA

94102. If proof of payment is received in chambers on or

before August 27, 2008 the Order To Show Cause will be

discharged and there will be no hearing.

Dated: August 19, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\SUCCESSFACTORS V. SOFTSCAPE\ORDER DENY ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL AND SCHED

OSC.FINAL.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-01376-CW Document 197 Filed 08/19/08 Page 7 of 7