`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM, et al.,
`
`Case No. 15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`PORTIONS OF THE AMENDED
`THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants.
`
`[Re: ECF 83]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On February 10, 2016, the Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s request to seal
`
`portions of the First Amended Third-Party Complaint because Plaintiff, the party that designated
`
`this information as highly confidential, did not provide a declaration in support of the sealing
`
`motion. ECF 68. Plaintiff subsequently submitted the declaration of Talin Gordnia which
`
`provided reasons for sealing portions of the Third-Party Complaint. ECF 83.
`
`There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &
`
`Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
`
`Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the
`
`burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific
`
`factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
`
`disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files 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 v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 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
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 109 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is
`
`‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,
`
`809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). “Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth
`
`Circuit has] carved out an exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are
`
`“tangentially related to the merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need
`
`only make a “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
`
`According to Plaintiff, Page 3, lines 4, 15-17; Page 4, lines 2-3, 20-21; and Page 5, lines
`
`10-11 of the Third-Party Complaint reflect confidential information of Plaintiff and the Third-
`
`Party Defendants. Decl. of Gordnia ¶ 4, ECF 83. These portions of the Third-Party Complaint
`
`disclose confidential business information and trade secrets that may negatively impact Plaintiff’s
`
`relationship with current and potential customers. Because this material is sealable, Defendant’s
`
`request to redact this information is appropriate under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). The Court has
`
`reviewed the redactions and finds them to be narrowly tailored, as required by Civil Local Rule
`
`79-5(d)(1)(C). As such, Defendant’s motion to portions of the amended Third-Party Complaint is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 24, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
