Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01363/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01363-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

JUSTIN DARISSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEST LABS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01363-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 84]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed administrative motion to seal the following 

documents filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 1) thirty-three exhibits to 

the Declaration of L. Timothy Fisher in their entirety, 2) portions of the declarations of Elizabeth 

Howlett, J. Michael Dennis, Colin Weir, and Plaintiff, 3) three exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s 

declaration in their entirety, and 4) portions of Plaintiff’s memorandum for the class certification 

motion. 

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal portions of documents: a 

“compelling reasons” standard, which applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, 

which applies to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1179. In this district, parties seeking to seal 

judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a 

sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). 

Plaintiff argues that the good cause standard applies here and that Plaintiff’s request meets 

this standard because all of the information sought to be sealed “is subject to the [parties’] 

Case 5:14-cv-01363-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/16 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

Protective Order.” Plaintiff additionally points the Court to caselaw regarding its latitude in 

granting protective orders. Mot. at 2 (citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th 

Cir. 2002)).

This, on its own, does not satisfy the good cause standard. As the Protective Order itself

explains, “this Protective Order does not entitle the parties to file confidential information under 

seal.” Protective Order, ECF 58 § 1. Similarly, Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) provides that

“[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” 

Instead, the request for sealing must establish that the document or portions thereof are 

“privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. 

L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated 

confidential by another party, the burden of articulating good cause or compelling reasons for 

sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

Defendant has not articulated reasons for sealing the requested documents, but Plaintiff has 

provided a declaration in support of the requested sealing. See Fisher Admin. Mot. Decl., ECF 84-

1 at 1. Plaintiff argues that the documents “contain confidential and privileged information 

prepared by Defendant and provided to Plaintiff on a confidential basis” because it “discusses 

and/or relates to Nest’s product designs, software development, analysis and testing of products, 

and confidential communications between Nest employees.” Admin. Mot. at 2. As such, Plaintiff 

argues, the information constitutes “trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or 

commercial information.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Upon reviewing the documents and portions thereof for which sealing is requested, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the good cause standard. While correctly identifying 

the type of information that a district court may seal, Plaintiff fails to explain how each of its 

requested documents qualifies as a trade secret or otherwise protectable information. 

For example, Plaintiff asks the Court to seal Exhibit 1 to the Fisher Declaration in support 

of the Motion for Class Certification, which he identifies as a “true and correct copy of a Nest 

support page.” Fisher Class Cert. Decl. ¶ 2. Though labeled “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’

Case 5:14-cv-01363-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/16 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

Eyes Only” for purposes of the parties’ Protective Order, the document appears to have been, and 

may still be, publicly available online. Other of Plaintiff’s requests similarly appear to seek the 

sealing of previously public information—for example, Exhibit 4 to the Fisher Class Certification

Declaration, which is described only by its bates numbers, appears to be a communications slide 

deck for Nest. This deck may or may not have been used at public presentations. Similarly, 

portions of the declarations that Plaintiff seeks to redact refer to copy decks, white papers, and 

advertisements that may have been publicly available. The Court lacks sufficient information to 

make this determination. Plaintiff’s statement that the documents are confidential because they 

“discuss[] and/or relate[] to Nest’s product designs, software development, analysis and testing of 

products” is insufficient because it also describes properly public information, like support pages 

and advertisements. 

Thus, without more—including information identifying each document and specific 

reasons for sealing it—the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the good cause standard. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may refile his request and Defendant may file a declaration in support of a refiled request 

by no later than February 5, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01363-BLF Document 86 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 3