Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01841/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01841-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRUSH TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 19-01841 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Both parties filed administrative motions to file under seal portions of their discovery

letters and their attached exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 69, 72). Since the discovery letters bore no

relation to the merits, only “good cause” is required to justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff’s administrative motion and supporting declaration simply asserts, without

further explanation, that the information sought to be filed under seal has been designated

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by defendant pursuant to this district’s interim

model protective order (see Dkt. Nos. 69-1 ¶ 3). In our district, however, mere “[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.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). Nor did defendant, the designating party, file a supporting declaration, as required

by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED. Plaintiff shall file an

unredacted version of its documents on the public docket by NOVEMBER 7 AT NOON. 

Case 3:19-cv-01841-WHA Document 79 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Defendant’s motion to seal portions of its own discovery letter and exhibit and

supporting declaration similarly cite its “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

designation, but slightly elaborate further that the documents contain defendant’s confidential

technical material relating to its technology (Dkt. Nos. 72 at 2; 72-1 ¶ 3). But good cause

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

documents are made public. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). “[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm”

are insufficient. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130–31. Here, mere assertion that the information at issue

is confidential, by itself, fails to make a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm

resulting from disclosure. This is particularly true where defendant failed to seek redaction of

similar information in connection with plaintiff’s discovery letter. Accordingly, defendant’s

motion to seal is DENIED. Defendant shall file an unredacted version of its documents on the

public docket by NOVEMBER 7 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01841-WHA Document 79 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 2