Glob. Indus. Inv. Ltd. v. Chung
| Decision Date | 07 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-CV-07670-LHK |
| Parties | GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW CHUNG, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Before the Court is Defendant Andrew Chung's administrative motion to file under seal filed in connection with his reply in support of his motion to dismiss. ECF No. 46. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Chung's administrative motion to file under seal.
"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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, a "strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In the Ninth Circuit, documents that are more than "tangentially related . . . to the underlying cause of action" are not sealable unless the Court agrees that "compelling reasons" exist to overcome the presumption of access. See id. at 1179. Exhibit 8, which supports Chung's motion to dismiss, is more than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action. The compelling reasons standard therefore applies. See, e.g., Doe v. Walmart Inc., No. 18-CV-02125-LHK, 2019 WL 636362, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2019) ().
Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist "when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, "[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id.
In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), in turn, requires the submitting party to attach a "declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable," a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material," and a proposed order that "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," as well as an "unredacted version of the document" that "indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Id.
The Court now turns to the merits of the instant sealing motion. Chung moves to seal parts of Exhibit 8, which he cites in his reply in support of his motion to dismiss. ECF No. 46. In support of his sealing motion, Chung submits a narrowly tailored declaration identifying sealablematerial in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Chung identifies about eleven lines from Exhibit 8 to his Reply that contain the names and compensation arrangements of employees (and potential hires) at his venture capital firm, 1955 Capital. ECF No. 46-1 at ¶ 8.
The Court holds that the portions of Exhibit 8 identified by Chung are sealable. Public disclosure of the sensitive business information that Chung identified could "harm a litigant's competitive standing." In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Indeed, another court in this district sealed the same information in another case involving the same arbitration award that underlies Chung's motion to dismiss. See Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, China Fortune Land Development v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP, No. 19-CV-07043-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2020), ECF No. 70 (sealing limited portions of Final Award that identify the names or terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial