Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401-23/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 RE

ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

The parties have submitted three Administrative Motions to

File Certain Documents Under Seal ("Motions to Seal"): Plaintiff's

Motion to Seal filed on December 22, 2006 ("Motion No. 1"), Docket

No. 154; Defendants' Motion to Seal filed on December 29, 2006

("Motion No. 2"), Docket No. 161; and Plaintiff's Motion to Seal

filed on January, 26, 2007 ("Motion No. 3"), Docket No. 186.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 191 Filed 02/05/07 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

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."). 

II. DISCUSSION

Motion No. 1 

The parties have not carried their burden as to the documents

submitted with Motion No. 1. These documents consist, in part, of

emails between Netblue and Spamhaus. The Court has previously

held that such emails are not confidential. See Docket No. 173. 

The other documents appear to possibly be internal Netblue

communications. However, they do not on their face appear to

contain trade secrets or other information protectable under the

law. Neither party has submitted arguments which would lead the

Court to conclude otherwise. Thus, Motion No. 1 is DENIED.

Motion No. 2

The parties have also not carried their burden as to the

documents submitted with Motion No. 2. As grounds for sealing

these documents, Defendants state that they contain names of

Netblue's affiliates, which, Defendants claim, "is confidential

and proprietary" and "summarize or quote from documents produced

by Netblue that have been designated at least confidential

pursuant to the Protective Order in this case." Kroger Decl. at

1. The Court has previously ruled that the names of Netblue's

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 191 Filed 02/05/07 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

affiliates are not confidential. See Docket No. 173. The other

ground, which was stated baldly and without argument, is

insufficient. Thus, Motion No. 2 is DENIED.

Motion No. 3

The parties have carried their burden as to Exhibit M

submitted with Motion No. 3. Exhibit M contains consumers'

personal information, which is legally protectable. 

The parties have not carried their burden as to Exhibit N

submitted with Motion No. 3. Exhibit N lists the names of Netblue

affiliates. The Court has previously ruled that the names of

Netblue's affiliates are not confidential. See Docket No. 173. 

Thus Motion No. 3 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the parties' Motions to Seal are

DENIED, except as to Exhibit M of Motion No. 3. Motion No. 3 is

GRANTED only as to Exhibit M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2007 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 191 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 3