Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-87/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 260

On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. filed an administrative motion to file 

under seal Exhibit D to its Motion for Determination of Fee Award filed at Dkt. No. 258. Dkt. 

No. 260. On October 13, 2015, Defendant IQ System, Inc. filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion. Dkt. No. 263. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART 

and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of 

access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 

Cir. 2006). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 

process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). The Court 

must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 

judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 646 Filed 05/06/16 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

judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the 

lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. 

The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” 

will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

II. DISCUSSION

Because a motion for fees and costs is a nondispositive motion, and only tangentially 

related to the merits of the case, the Court applies the “good cause” standard. Plaintiff contends 

that Exhibit D contains confidential information relating to attorney-work product time entries 

describing work counsel performed in connection with Defendant IQSystem Inc.’s Counterclaim. 

Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that attorney invoices are not work product, and thus are 

not confidential or privileged. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “the identity of the client, the amount of the fee, the 

identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are 

usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.” Clarke v. Am. Commerce 

Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992). “However, correspondence, bills, ledgers, 

statements, and time records which also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, 

litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular 

areas of law, fall within the privilege.” Id. 

Here, portions of Exhibit D reveal the nature of the services provided and could potentially 

reveal Loop’s litigation strategy. However, Exhibit D also contains nonprivileged information, 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 646 Filed 05/06/16 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

including the hourly billing rate, the number of hours billed, and the total amount billed. Plaintiff 

has failed to establish good cause that such information is sealable, as it has provided no basis 

from which the Court can conclude specific harm or prejudice would result if the billing rates and 

hours were disclosed. Accordingly, the motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. By Monday May 9, 2016, Plaintiff shall file with the Court (1) an unredacted version of 

Exhibit D under seal, and (2) a redacted version of Exhibit D in the public record with only the 

descriptions of the work performed redacted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/6/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 646 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3