Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01046/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01046-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

BOLT THREADS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECOVATIVE DESIGN LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01046-KAW 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 2

On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff Bolt Threads, Inc. filed the instant complaint, asserting 

that Defendant Ecovative Design LLC had materially breached a License and Assignment 

Agreement ("Agreement"). (Compl. at 1, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to file under 

seal, seeking to seal all references to specific terms of the Agreement, as well as the Agreement 

itself. (Mot. to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff states that the sealing is required because 

"[t]he Agreement expressly provides that neither party shall disclose any terms or conditions of 

the Agreement." (Id. at 2.)

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice. "Historically, courts 

have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). "Unless 

a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is 

the starting point." Id. (internal quotation omitted). The burden is therefore on the party seeking to 

seal a judicial record to "overcom[e] this strong presumption by meeting the 'compelling reasons' 

standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

Case 4:19-cv-01046-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/05/19 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

disclosure . . . ." Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotations omitted). "'[C]ompelling reasons' sufficient to 

outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court 

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, sch as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 

1179.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal the majority of its complaint. "This Court and other district 

courts in the Ninth Circuit have applied the compelling reasons standard to a motion to seal 

involving the filing of a complaint because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit." 

Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, Case No. 16-cv-2763-BLF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133560, at *7 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 21, 2017); see also In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., Case No. 13-md-2430-LHK, 2013 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138910, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013).

While Plaintiff asserts that the terms are confidential because the Agreement provides that 

the parties shall not disclose the terms, this does not satisfy the compelling reasons requirement. 

"[A]n agreement among parties to keep a document confidential does not establish a compelling 

reason to seal." Ponomarenko, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133560, at *10; see also Civ. L. R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate certain documents as 

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable."). For 

that reason, the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice.

Plaintiff has chosen to file this lawsuit for breach of contract, thus putting the subject 

matter of the Agreement at issue. See Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, Case No. 16-cv-2763-BLF, Case 

No. 16-cv-2763-BLF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146877, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017). Any 

renewed motion to file under seal should be narrowly tailored, and Plaintiff must demonstrate that 

there are compelling reasons to seal the information with specific factual findings, i.e. that the 

portions to be sealed contain trade secrets or competitively sensitive business information. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01046-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 2