Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01946/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01946-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Stockholders Suits

---

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

FITEQ INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VENTURE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01946-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 198]

Consistent with the parties’ protective order entered in this action, see ECF 98, Plaintiff 

moves to file under seal two exhibits filed with its motion for partial summary judgment, as well 

as the portions of its motion referencing those two exhibits. ECF 198. Plaintiff states that these 

documents have been designated highly confidential by Defendant Venture. Venture has filed a 

declaration in support of the sealing request. See Khoo Decl., ECF 202-1. 

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 documents, a “compelling 

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which 

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of a 

motion for summary judgment, or portions of any documents filed in support or in opposition to 

that motion, must meet the “compelling reasons” standard articulated in Phillips.

Here, Venture’s response in support of the motion to seal, along with the Khoo 

Declaration, provide the necessary compelling reasons to support sealing the documents. Exhibit 

Case 5:13-cv-01946-BLF Document 203 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

DD, which Plaintiff asks to seal in its entirety,1is an agreement between Venture and a non-party 

to the case, and includes confidential business information of Venture’s business partner. 

Disclosing the document and the confidential information within it would “disrupt the business 

relationship between Venture and its Partner.” Defs.’ Resp. at 3. Exhibit EE, which Plaintiff seeks 

to seal in part, is a letter regarding a grant from the Singapore Economic Development Board

(“EDB”), a non-party to this suit and a government agency, received by Venture. The redactions 

include EDB’s confidential grant terms, and could harm the business planning and strategic 

decisions of that agency. Cf. Khoo Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to redact a single limited 

portion of the partial motion for summary judgment which references sealed portions of these 

documents. See Bishop Decl. at 1. 

Plaintiff’s sealing request meets the compelling reasons standard articulated in Phillips, 

and its requests are narrowly tailored consistent with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). For the 

foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

Exhibit DD, as produced to Plaintiff, already includes certain redactions. See Bishop Decl., ECF 

198-1 at 1 n.1. As such, Plaintiff has filed a redacted document as Exhibit DD, and seeks to seal 

the entirety of that redacted agreement. 

Case 5:13-cv-01946-BLF Document 203 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 2