`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC.; NEARMAP
`AUSTRALIA PTY LTD; and
`NEARMAP LTD,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
`SEAL (DOC. NOS. 124 & 139) RELATED
`TO NEARMAP’S DISCOVERY MOTION
`REGARDING OCTOBER 10, 2022
`DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283
`
`District Judge Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 308 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.17998 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`CENTRAL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement case, the parties have filed motions to seal1 exhibits 1, 2 and 4
`
`to Defendant Nearmap US, Inc.’s short form discovery motion2 regarding discovery requests
`
`served on or before October 10, 2022. For the reasons explained below, the motions to seal are
`
`granted.
`
`Exhibits 1 and 2 are certain requests for production and requests for admission
`
`propounded by Nearmap to Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry
`
`International Corp. (collectively, “EagleView”).3 Exhibit 4 is a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition notice issued by Nearmap to EagleView.4 Nearmap moves to seal these documents
`
`
`
`1 (Doc. Nos. 124, 139.)
`
`2 (Doc. No. 123.)
`
`3 (Doc. Nos. 125-1, 125-2 (sealed).)
`
`4 (Doc. No. 125-4 (sealed).)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 308 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.17999 Page 2 of 4
`
`because they contain information EagleView designated “attorneys’ eyes only.”5 EagleView
`
`contends these documents contain confidential business information regarding a settlement
`
`agreement between EagleView and nonparties Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Xactware Solutions,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Verisk”), which would harm the competitive interests of both EagleView and
`
`Verisk if disclosed.6 No oppositions to the motions to seal were filed.
`
`“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”7
`
`However, this right is “not absolute.”8 “[T]he presumption in favor of access to judicial records
`
`may be overcome where countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in
`
`access.”9 “The burden is on the party seeking to restrict access to show some significant interest
`
`that outweighs the presumption.”10 “[W]here documents are used to determine litigants’
`
`substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches.”11
`
`Here, the proposed sealed documents merely relate to a discovery dispute. And the court
`
`denied Nearmap’s discovery motion because the discovery requests and deposition notice were
`
`untimely, without addressing the substance of the requests or deposition topics.12 Thus, the
`
`public’s interest in access to these documents is low at this stage. Further, EagleView has
`
`
`5 (See Nearmap Mot. to Seal, Doc. No. 124.)
`
`6 (See EagleView Mot. to Seal, Doc. No. 139.)
`
`7 Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mann v. Boatright,
`477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)).
`
`8 Id. (citation omitted).
`
`9 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`10 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`11 Id. at 1242 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
`
`12 (See Doc. No. 151.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 308 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.18000 Page 3 of 4
`
`articulated a significant countervailing interest in protecting confidential business information
`
`related to the Verisk settlement.13 Indeed, the court recently granted the parties’ motions to seal
`
`the Verisk settlement agreement and related filings, finding EagleView’s and Verisk’s interest in
`
`protecting confidential business information in the settlement agreement from competitors
`
`outweighed the public’s interest in access.14 Likewise, this countervailing interest outweighs the
`
`presumption of public access here, where the proposed sealed documents relate only to a
`
`discovery dispute and were not substantively addressed in the court’s ruling.15
`
`
`13 See Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147, 1162 n.8 (10th Cir. 2016) (“[A]
`party may overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records by
`demonstrating the pages contain ‘sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
`competitive standing.’” (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978));
`see also Hershey v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., 550 F. App’x 566, 574 (10th Cir. 2013)
`(unpublished) (stating this rationale is even stronger where “the records could harm the
`competitive interests of third parties.”).
`
`14 (See Doc. No. 307.)
`
`15 This determination may be revisited if the documents are later used to determine the parties’
`substantive legal rights.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 308 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.18001 Page 4 of 4
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The parties’ motions to seal16 are granted, and exhibits 1, 2, and 417 to Nearmap’s
`
`discovery motion18 shall remain sealed until otherwise ordered.
`
`DATED this 9th day of June, 2023.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`____________________________
`Daphne A. Oberg
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`16 (Doc. Nos. 124, 139.)
`
`
`
`17 (Doc. Nos. 125-1, 125-2, 125-4 (sealed).)
`
`18 (Doc. No. 123.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
