Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02560/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02560-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC
Counter-defendant
Flywheel Software, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLYWHEEL SOFTWARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02560-SK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Regarding Docket No. 4

Plaintiff CREATIVE MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC moves to file portions of the text 

of the Complaint and Exhibit A in its entirety under seal. (Dkt. 4.) The Court GRANTS in part 

and DENIES in part the motion.

A. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all documents 

other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. City and 

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotations 

omitted). 

Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, that the request: (1) “establishes that the 

document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 

protection under the law” and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill the requirements of Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference 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, 

Case 3:16-cv-02560-SI Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 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

are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

The showing required for overcoming the strong presumption of access depends on the 

type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to 

most judicial records. This standard derives from the common law right to ‘inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pacific 

Creditors Association, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong presumption, the 

party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 

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

disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations omitted).

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of the case” 

are not subject to the strong presumption of access.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a showing under the 

good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1097. A court 

may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Thereafter, a 

district court must “articulate [the]...reasoning or findings underlying its decision to seal.” Apple 

Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). 

B. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibit A, the entire contract between itself and Defendant 

Flywheel Software, Inc., as well as those portions of the Complaint that refer to the obligations set 

forth in the contract. The basis of Plaintiff’s motion is that the parties are bound by the 

confidentiality provision found at paragraph 8 of Exhibit A, and Defendant has not consented to 

the disclosure of the terms of the agreement. (Dkt. 4-1, ¶¶ 3 and 4.) 

As noted above, a stipulation, or in this case, a contract term, is insufficient to render a 

document confidential. This basis for Plaintiff’s request alone is insufficient to seal Exhibit A. 

However, given that the Defendant has not yet appeared and that Defendant may argue that the 

terms of Exhibit A contain trade secret information, this Court is willing for present purposes of 

Case 3:16-cv-02560-SI Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 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

this filing, to permit the redaction of portions of Exhibit A and the Complaint in an effort to more 

“narrowly tailor” the sealing of those portions of the Exhibit A which arguably, although not 

definitively, may be considered protected trade secret. The Court will revisit this issue in the 

future at which time sealing may be refused. This information includes the following:

Complaint (Dkt. 1): at page 7: lines 6-7; and page 9: line 25; 

Exhibit A (Dkt. 4-6), numbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10.

C. CONCLUSION

The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under 

seal, as described immediately above. The Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of the Complaint 

and Exhibit A which comports with this order within 7 days, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

5(f)(3).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02560-SI Document 8 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 3