Case5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document37 Filed09/02/15 Page1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Case No. 15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
`PORTIONS OF AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
`
`Defendant.
`
`[Re: ECF 35]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Lam Research Corporation’s administrative motion to file
`
`certain portions of its First Amended Complaint and supporting exhibits under seal. Pl.’s Mot.,
`
`ECF 35.
`
`“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption
`
`in favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” 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)). Judicial records attached to dispositive motions are treated
`
`differently from records attached to non-dispositive ones. Id. at 1180. A party seeking to seal
`
`judicial records attached to non-dispositive motions need only show “good cause” under Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to seal such records. Id. A party seeking to seal records in
`
`connection with a dispositive motion, however, bears a higher burden of 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. It is this Court’s practice to hold requests to
`
`seal portions of a complaint to the higher “compelling reasons” standard because the allegations in
`
`a complaint so often establish the merits of the case. See Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13-
`
`CV-04613-BLF, 2014 WL 4145520, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014); Adema Technologies,
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document37 Filed09/02/15 Page2 of 3
`
`
`
`Inc. v. Wacker Chemie AG, No. 5:13-CV-05599-PSG, 2013 WL 6622904, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`
`16, 2013); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C 06-06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008).
`
`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.” Kamakana, 447
`
`F.3d at 1178-79 (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
`
`records.” Id. at 1179. In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore
`
`follow Civil L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to
`
`seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal one paragraph of its First Amended Complaint, small portions
`
`of Exhibit D to the First Amended Complaint, and the entirety of Exhibit E to the First Amended
`
`Complaint. Plaintiff argues and attests that the portions of the First Amended Complaint and
`
`Exhibit E sought to be sealed contain details regarding the structure of Plaintiff’s confidential
`
`customer agreements that reveal the contracting parties’ obligations and may put Plaintiff at a
`
`competitive disadvantage if disclosed to its competitors. Pl.’s Mot. 2; Decl. of Talin Gordnia ¶¶ 4,
`
`8, ECF 35-1. Although Plaintiff argues that the “good cause” standard should apply to its request
`
`to seal this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that
`
`“compelling reasons” also support sealing and that the request is narrowly tailored. Likewise,
`
`Plaintiff’s request to seal the portions of Exhibit D that reveal the identity of one of its customers
`
`is narrowly tailored and supported by compelling reasons. See Pl.’s Mot. 3; Gordnia Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal is therefore GRANTED, and the following
`
`documents and portions thereof may remain under seal:
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document37 Filed09/02/15 Page3 of 3
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Sealed Portions of Document
`
`Lam Research Corp.’s First Amended
`Complaint
`
`Exhibit D to Lam Research Corp.’s First
`Amended Complaint
`
`Page 11, lines 27-28; Page 12, lines 1-4
`
`Text marked by enclosure in a red text box
`on pages 1, 2, and 3 of the unredacted
`version of Exhibit D
`
`Exhibit E to Lam Research Corp.’s First
`Amended Complaint
`
`Entire document
`
`
`
`Plaintiff shall file into the record the public redacted version of its First Amended
`
`Complaint and all accompanying exhibits by no later than September 8, 2015. By that date,
`
`Plaintiff must also certify service of the unredacted version of the First Amended Complaint and
`
`exhibits on Defendant.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 2, 2015
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court