Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04401-9/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 NETBLUE, INC ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04401 SC (EDL) 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND RE

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO

EXHIBITS

Attendant to the parties’ cross-motions to compel, both parties have filed

administrative motions to file supporting documents under seal. The facts of this case have

been adequately addressed in the Order on Cross-Motions to Compel. The Court will not

repeat them here. The Court herein addresses the following motions relating to confidential

information:

 (1) Plaintiff Phillips’Administrative Motion to Seal Certain Documents Filed in

Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants[’] Motion to Compel (Doc. No.

88), requesting that the Court seal (A) the complete deposition transcript of

Plaintiff Ritchie Phillips, and (B) a list of email accounts belonging to Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant Netblue, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Certain Document

Filed in Support of Netblue’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 7
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

No. 95), requesting that the Court seal (C) excerpts of the deposition transcript

of Monica Gerber, an employee of Netblue. 

(3) Plaintiff Phillips’ Administrative Motion to Seal Certain Documents Filed in

Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants [sic] [Opposition to Plaintiffs’]

Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 103), requesting that the Court seal (C) excerpts

of the Gerber Transcript, specifically pages 63 through 66 of the certified copy

of the Gerber Deposition.

(4) Defendant Netblue, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Certain Documents

Filed in Support of Netblue’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.

No. 107), requesting that the Court seal documents submitted as Exhibits A,

B, and D to the Supplemental Declaration of Stuart Clark in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. The Motion asks that the Court seal (C) more

excerpts of the Gerber Transcript, specifically pages 126 to 134 of the certified

copy of the Gerber Deposition; that the Court seal (D) Defendants’ Response to

Interrogatory No. 11 (addresses and telephone numbers of affiliates) and

Defendants’ Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 11 (addresses and

telephone numbers of affiliates). 

The Court herein also addresses the following:

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike all of Defendants’ Post Reply Filings (Doc. No.

109). 

(6) Defendants’ Evidentia[ry] Objections to Purported Evidence Attached to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 85).

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 7
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

(7) Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections to Unsupported Allegations in Reply Brief

Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 105).

I. Issues Relating to Confidentiality

A. Complete Ritchie Phillips Deposition Transcript

The Court denies the request to seal the complete transcript from Phillips' deposition. 

Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order the parties signed in this case, "[a] Designating

Party must take care to designate for protection only those parts of material, documents,

items, or oral or written communications that qualify [for protection]," and "[m]ass,

indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited." Stipulated Protective Order at

section 5.1. Civil L.R. 79-5 provides that the request to seal documents “must be narrowly

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material... .” Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. 

There may be portions of the deposition transcript that should be sealed. Plaintiff

may resubmit a more tailored request to seal only those portions of the Phillips Transcript

that contain information that is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection

under the law.

B. List of Plaintiff's Email Accounts

The Court has reviewed the list of email accounts and the October 4 Grabowski

Declaration in support of sealing the list. Plaintiff makes the conclusory statement that “[t]he

email accounts are highly confidential and are protected by the Protective Order approved by

the Court... .” Oct. 4 Grabowski Decl., ¶3. The purported “highly confidential” or even

“confidential” nature of this list of email addresses is not evident on its face. Plaintiff states

that the accounts are inactive or have never been active. See List of Email Addresses, lodged

with the Court. Accordingly, there is no consumer privacy or commercial value to protect

here. Plaintiff has not offered any support to show how “disclosure to another Party or

nonparty would create a substantial risk of serious injury that could not be avoided by less

restrictive means.” Stipulated Protective Order at 2.4 (defining “Highly Confidential”). The

Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s request to seal the list of email accounts belonging to

Plaintiff.

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

C. Excerpts of Monica Gerber Deposition Transcript

Defendants seek to file under seal selected pages of the Monica Gerber deposition

transcript, which has been designated Confidential in its entirety. Plaintiff has opposed the

sealing of the Gerber deposition transcript excerpts on the basis that the transcript contains

no trade secrets, privileged information, or otherwise protectable information. See

Opposition to Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal Certain Documents Filed in

Support of Netblue's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 97), at 2-3. 

Under the local rules, only information that is “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

otherwise entitled to protection under the law” may be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5; see also

Protective Order at 11:13–16 (“A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material

must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5”). In addition, a request to seal “must be narrowly

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material...” Civ. L.R. 79-5. In designating the

entire transcript “Confidential,” without a declaration establishing the protectable nature,

Defendants have failed to meet this burden.

Plaintiff seeks to seal a deposition excerpt on the basis that Defendant has designated

the deposition transcript as confidential. See Admin. Motion (Doc. No. 103) (moving to seal

pages 63 through 66 of the Gerber Deposition Transcript). Plaintiff does not identify any

independent basis why the excerpt, or information extracted from the excerpt should be

sealed. Following Plaintiff’s filing, Defendants have failed to file a declaration establishing

that the designated information is sealable, in compliance with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). 

Accordingly, the excerpts may be made part of the public record. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). 

Even if Defendants had filed a declaration containing arguments made elsewhere in its

motion to seal filings, Defendants have made no showing that this information “derives

independent economic value ... from not being generally known.” See Cal. Civ. Code §

3426.1(d)(1) (defining trade secret). Accordingly, Defendants have failed to establish that

these deposition excerpts contain protectable information.

/

/ 

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

 Defendants seek to seal two deposition excerpts on the basis that the testimony

“identifies and discusses Netblue’s third party affiliates/vendors, including descriptions of

internal communications pertaining to action taken against affiliates and whether or not the

affiliates engaged in misconduct.” Admin. Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 107), at 3 and Ex. A

(seeking to seal final Gerber Tr. at 56-57; 126-32); see also Admin. Motion to Seal (Doc. No.

95) (seeking to seal rough Gerber Tr. at 20, 53, 54, 61, 121, 122, 126, 127). Defendants

argue that this information “constitutes trade secret[s] and otherwise confidential business

information” that should be sealed. Id. at 3. However, Defendants themselves have failed to

protect the information they now seek to seal. Defendants publicly filed some portions of

the Gerber deposition transcript which it elsewhere seeks to seal. See Declaration of

Christine S. Watson in Support of Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Certain

Documents Under Seal (“Watson Decl.”) (publicly filed as Doc. No. 96), Ex. B (rough

Gerber Tr. pp. 54-57); compare id., Ex. A (rough Gerber Tr. pp. 20, 53, 54, 61, 121, 122,

126, 127) (filed under seal). In addition, Plaintiff publicly filed an e-mail attachment

summarizing pages 54 and 61, which Defendants did not object to. See Notice of Motion

and Motion for Order Shortening Time for Hearing of Motion Compelling Discovery, for

Evidentiary Sanctions Etc., and Declaration of Jason K. Singleton (Doc. No. 74), Ex. A

(identifying purportedly confidential identity of affiliate and substance of deposition

testimony ). And Defendants quote from and summarize purportedly confidential deposition

testimony from pages 20, 53, 54, 61, 121, 122, 126, and 127 of the rough Gerber deposition

transcript. See Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Documents at n.3

(Doc. No. 90) (stating intention to republish confidential information after Plaintiff publicly

filed excerpts from the Gerber deposition transcript which had been designated as

“Confidential”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have waived any

confidentiality claims over the testimony on these pages of the rough Gerber deposition

transcript, and on the corresponding pages of the final Gerber deposition transcript, including

pages 56-57 and 126-32. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Administrative Motions

to seal excerpts of the Gerber deposition transcript.

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

D. Affiliate Identities and Contact Information

Defendants filed an Administrative Motion to seal its Response and Supplemental

Response to Interrogatory No. 11, which contains the names, addresses, and phone numbers

of several of Netblue’s affiliates. See Exs. B and D to the Supplemental Declaration of

Stuart Clark in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 106). The

confidentiality of this information is also the subject of a pending Motion. Plaintiff noticed a

motion to “strike and deny designation of Defendants’ affiliate documents and information as

“Confidential” and “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” See Doc. No. 110. 

Defendants have themselves disclosed a portion of the confidential information at

issue, however, which partially moots their motion to seal. Compare First Watson Decl., Ex.

B (Defendants’ Court Ordered Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories,

publicly filed) with Defendants’ Supplemental Decl., Ex. B (Defendants’ Court Ordered

Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories, filed conditionally under seal). 

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to seal Exhibit B to Defendants’

Supplemental Declaration, because the responses and supplemental responses to

Interrogatory No. 11 already have been disclosed. The Court conditionally GRANTS

Defendants’ request to seal Exhibit D to Defendants’ Supplemental Declaration (Defendants’

Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories), which contains a list of

Defendant’s email affiliates, their addresses, and phone numbers. If the parties stipulate or

the Court rules that this information should not be designated confidential in connection with

Plaintiff’s pending Motion (Doc. No. 110), Defendants shall publicly file Exhibit D within

10 days of the Court’s Order or Stipulated Order.

II. Motion to Strike Post Reply Filings

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike All of Defendants’ Post Reply Filings. 

Under Civ. L.R. 7-3(d), supplemental materials addressing the subject of a motion may not

be filed after a Reply without prior Court approval, subject to certain exceptions. See Civ.

L.R. 7-3(d). 

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

III. Evidentiary Objections

The Court overrules Defendants’ objections. This is a discovery motion, not a motion

for summary judgment with strict evidentiary requirements. See Order on Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel, Defendants’ Motion to Compel, Motion for a Protective Order, and Motion for

Sanctions (Doc. No. 40), at 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 8, 2006 

 

HON. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04401-SC Document 142 Filed 12/08/06 Page 7 of 7