Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04881/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04881-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

EMILY FAIRBAIRN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FIDELITY INVESTMENTS 

CHARITABLE GIFT FUND,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04881-JSC 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 166 & 167

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motions to seal (1) portions of 

Fidelity Charitable’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and exhibits thereto, 

and (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of summary judgment and exhibits thereto. 

(Dkt. Nos. 166 & 167.) The Court previously denied motions to seal this material without 

prejudice to renewal accompanied by declarations showing that Energous and/or the third-party 

contend that the information is confidential and properly subject to sealing. (Dkt. No. 157.) 

In the renewed motions to seal Plaintiffs seek sealing of nonpublic information regarding 

Energous and a former employee (Mr. Leabman), including internal communications regarding 

the former employee’s employment status. Plaintiffs contend that “[t]he disclosure of the 

confidential information in these documents would be harmful to the former employee of 

Energous and to Energous because they contain private personal information about the former 

employee and nonpublic business information about Energous that could be improperly used by 

Energous’s competitors to harm its business.” (Dkt. No. 167 at 3:24-27; see also Dkt. No. 166 at 

3:23-26.) Neither Mr. Leabman nor Energous have submitted declarations in support of sealing, 

but counsel for Plaintiffs attest that they have spoken to both third parties and they requested 

sealing of these matters. Mr. Leabman advised counsel that “he was concerned about the public 

Case 3:18-cv-04881-JSC Document 172 Filed 03/02/20 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

disclosure of facts and opinions relating to his employment status at Energous, including his 

transition in January.” (Dkt. No. 166-1 at ¶ 6.) Similarly, counsel for Energous advised Plaintiffs’ 

counsel that “that these documents or portions thereof should be sealed because they contain 

nonpublic, confidential information, the disclosure of which will harm Energous’ privacy 

interests. Specifically, she was concerned about the public disclosure of facts and opinions relating 

to personnel decisions about Energous employees.” (Dkt. No. 167-2 at ¶ 6.) 

These attestations fail to satisfy the compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Examples of compelling reasons include 

“the use of court records for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private spite, promote public 

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. “Simply mentioning a general 

category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, 

does not satisfy the burden.” Id. Plaintiffs and the third parties’ conclusory statements that the 

materials discussed therein are confidential and nonpublic, does not demonstrate that they are 

properly sealable. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK PSG, 2013 

WL 412864, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (“Although Samsung recites boilerplate terms that this 

information is proprietary and confidential, it does not provide a particularized showing of how 

this information would be detrimental if disclosed.”); Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-

WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)( “[a]n unsupported assertion of unfair 

advantage to competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information to 

obtain an unfair advantage is insufficient.”); Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 

3:12–cv–3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (“although 

[defendant] identifies the information at issue as proprietary and confidential, it does not provide 

reasons beyond the boilerplate references to competitive disadvantage if the information were 

publicly available.”); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 12–cv–1971–CW, 2013 

WL 4049686, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2013) (denying sealing where party “failed to state what 

harm [it] would experience if this material were publicly disclosed or to provide any specific 

reasons, supported by facts, that could outweigh the public policy favoring public access to court 

filings.”). It is not at all apparent how disclosure of the information would harm Energous, a 

Case 3:18-cv-04881-JSC Document 172 Filed 03/02/20 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

publicly-traded company, in a manner that would render the information subject to sealing.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ renewed administrative motions to seal are DENIED.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 166 and 167.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04881-JSC Document 172 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3