Evolutionary Intelligence, Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 December 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. C 13-04202 SI
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant.

EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant.

Case No. C 13-04202 SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: December 10, 2013

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

SEAL

On November 19, 2013, defendant Facebook Inc. filed a motion to stay this action pending inter partes review. Docket No. 128. By the present motion, plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, Inc. moves to file under seal two exhibits filed in support of its opposition to Facebook's motion to stay, and portions of its opposition and supporting declarations that refer to those two exhibits. Docket No. 133.

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are "traditionally kept secret," courts begin their sealing analysis with "a strong presumption in favor of access." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of "articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be "narrowlytailored," such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Because defendant's motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion, the "good cause" standard applies. See SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that a motion to stay a civil proceeding where the effect is not the denial of relief is a non-dispositive motion).

The first exhibit, Exhibit F to the Declaration of Marie McCrary, is a document containing information about defendant's former employees. Docket No. 133-14, McCrary Decl. Ex. F. Plaintiff argues that this document should be sealed because it was designated as highly confidential by defendant. However, good cause "cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document under seal." Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15965, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a "particularized showing" to establish good case). Neither party has provided the Court with such a declaration. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for sealing the document.

The second exhibit, Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael DeAngelo, is a licensing agreement between plaintiff and a third party. Docket No. 133-26, DeAngelo Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiff's motion and supporting declaration broadly state that the licensing agreement contains commercially sensitive information related to plaintiff's ownership interest, business practices, and operations. Docket No. 133 at 4. However, broad allegations stating that a licensing agreement contains sensitive business and financial information is insufficient to establish good cause. Avago Techs. Fiber IP (Sing.) PTE, Ltd. v. Iptronics, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8086, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2013); see also Beckman Indus. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) ("...