`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. 164 & 173) RELATED
`TO EAGLEVIEW’S DISCOVERY
`MOTION REGARDING THE
`DEPOSITIONS OF CHRIS JURASEK
`AND KIM NAKAMARU
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283
`
`District Judge Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 309 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.18002 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`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 through
`
`6 to Defendant Nearmap US, Inc.’s opposition2 to Plaintiffs Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and
`
`Pictometry International Corp.’s (collectively, “EagleView”) discovery motion3 regarding the
`
`depositions of EagleView CEO Chris Jurasek and general counsel Kim Nakamaru. For the
`
`reasons explained below, the motions to seal are granted.
`
`These exhibits contain emails reflecting settlement negotiations between EagleView and
`
`nonparties Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Xactware Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Verisk”) in another
`
`case, as well as a draft settlement agreement.4 Nearmap moves to seal these documents because
`
`
`
`1 (Doc. Nos. 164, 173.)
`
`2 (Doc. No. 163.)
`
`3 (Doc. No. 153.)
`
`4 (Doc. Nos. 165-2–165-7 (sealed).)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 309 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.18003 Page 2 of 3
`
`EagleView designated them “attorneys’ eyes only.”5 EagleView contends these documents
`
`contain confidential business information regarding the Verisk settlement which would harm the
`
`competitive interests of both EagleView and Verisk if disclosed.6
`
`“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’s order granting the discovery motion refers to the negotiation emails but does not discuss
`
`their contents in detail.12 Thus, the public’s interest in access to these documents is low at this
`
`stage. Further, EagleView has articulated a significant countervailing interest in protecting
`
`confidential business information related to the Verisk settlement.13 Indeed, the court recently
`
`
`5 (See Nearmap Mot. to Seal, Doc. No. 164.)
`
`6 (See EagleView Mot. to Seal, Doc. No. 173.)
`
`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. 221.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 309 Filed 06/09/23 PageID.18004 Page 3 of 3
`
`granted the parties’ motions to seal the final Verisk settlement agreement and similar negotiation
`
`emails filed in connection with Nearmap’s motion to amend its answer, finding EagleView’s and
`
`Verisk’s interest in protecting confidential 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 discussed in detail in the court’s ruling.15
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The parties’ motions to seal16 are granted, and exhibits 1 through 617 to EagleView’s
`
`discovery motion18 regarding the depositions of Mr. Jurasek and Ms. Nakamaru shall remain
`
`sealed until otherwise ordered.
`
`DATED this 9th day of June, 2023.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`____________________________
`Daphne A. Oberg
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`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 (Doc. No. 307.)
`
`15 This determination may be revisited if the documents are later used to determine the parties’
`substantive legal rights.
`
`16 (Doc. Nos. 164, 173.)
`
`17 (Doc. Nos. 165-2–165-7 (sealed).)
`
`18 (Doc. No. 153.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
