Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05814-0/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 DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 24]

Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal the portions of its 

motion to dismiss (ECF 26) that cite or quote Exhibit B to the Complaint (ECF 1). See ECF 24.

For the reasons that follow, the motion to seal 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 27 Filed 11/28/18 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 

A motion to dismiss, like a Complaint, is more than tangentially related to the merits of the 

case such that the movant must provide “compelling reasons” for sealing. Here, Defendant seeks 

to file under seal portions of its motion to dismiss that reference or cite Exhibit B of the 

Complaint. Magistrate Judge Cousins previously allowed Exhibit B to be filed under seal (ECF 

15), pursuant to a motion by Plaintiff (ECF 3). Plaintiff argued that Exhibit B should be sealed 

because it contains specific information regarding Plaintiff’s goals and requirements for the 

development project at issue, including cost requirements, production cycles, payment structures,

and other related financial information, the disclosure of which could harm Plaintiff’s business 

ventures. See ECF 3 at 1; ECF 3-1 ¶¶ 2–3. Though Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) required Plaintiff 

as the designating party to file a declaration supporting Defendant’s sealing motion, the Court 

finds compelling reasons to seal the motion based on Plaintiff’s previously-filed declaration (ECF 

3-1) and because Judge Cousins allowed Exhibit B to be filed under seal. Moreover, Defendant’s 

request is narrowly tailored to seal only those portions of its motion to dismiss that quote or 

substantively reference Exhibit B. As such, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal.

Because a redacted version of the motion has been filed in the public record, and 

unredacted versions have been filed under seal, no further action is necessary. In the future, the 

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 27 Filed 11/28/18 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

Court will deny without prejudice motions to seal if the designating party does not file a 

responsive declaration in support of that specific motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05814-BLF Document 27 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 3