`
`Brent O. Hatch (5715)
`Hatch Law Group PC
`22 E. 100 S., Suite 400
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`Telephone: (801) 869-1919
`hatch@hatchpc.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants – Additional counsel listed in signature
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`
`
`
`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL, CORP.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NEARMAP US, INC., NEARMAP
`AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, and NEARMAP
`PTY LTD,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEAL DKT.
`426 PURSUANT TO DUCivR 5-3
`
`
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00283(TS)(DAO)
`
`Judge: Ted Stewart
`
`Magistrate Judge: Daphne A. Oberg
`
`
`
`Pursuant to DUCivR 5-3, Defendants Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap Australia Pty Ltd, and
`
`Nearmap Pty Ltd (collectively, “Nearmap”) respectfully move this Court for leave to seal
`
`Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) (Dkt. 426) (“Plaintiffs’ Opposition”).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court may at any time order all or a portion of the documents filed in a pending civil
`
`case to be sealed for good cause. DUCivR 5-3. “[A] court, in its discretion, may seal documents
`
`‘if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.’” United States v. Hickey,
`
`767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). “Documents can only be sealed on motion and with a
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 431 Filed 04/12/24 PageID.22161 Page 2 of 3
`
`showing of ‘good cause.’” AH Aero Serv., LLC v. Heber City, Case No. 2:17-CV-01118, 2020
`
`WL 6135819, at *2 (D. Utah Oct. 19, 2020). There is good cause for the Court to seal
`
`documents that “contain information that is highly sensitive and of a proprietary nature.” Braun
`
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 719 Fed. Appx. 782, 801 n.8 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing Nixon v.
`
`Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
`
`Good cause exists for the Court to seal Plaintiffs’ Opposition because it contains
`
`Nearmap’s sensitive technical information, sensitive business information, competitive technical
`
`information, and competitive business information that is CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION –
`
`ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY pursuant to the Standard Protective Order. See DUCivR 26-2. The
`
`Court should restrict public access because Nearmap’s countervailing interest in preserving the
`
`confidentiality of its commercially sensitive business information outweighs the limited public
`
`interest in access. Further, “the public’s right of access is outweighed by” the possible
`
`competitive harm to Nearmap from public disclosure of its commercially sensitive information.
`
`Finally, the relief sought through this motion is narrowly tailored under the circumstances
`
`because Nearmap is requesting to seal only the portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition necessary to
`
`protect their substantial commercial interests.
`
`Because there are compelling reasons to keep Plaintiffs’ Opposition under seal, and
`
`because Nearmap is requesting to seal only the documents necessary to protect Nearmap’s
`
`substantial commercial interests, Plaintiffs’ Opposition should be sealed.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Nearmap respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order restricting public access to
`
`and/or sealing Plaintiffs’ Opposition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 431 Filed 04/12/24 PageID.22162 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brent O. Hatch
`Brent O. Hatch
`HATCH LAW GROUP, PC
`
`Of Counsel:
`Nicholas Groombridge
`Jennifer H. Wu
`Jenny C. Wu
`Jennifer Rea Deneault
`Michael Milea
`Allison Penfield
`Scott E. Miller
`Kyle Bersani
`GROOMBRIDGE, WU,
` BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`565 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
`New York, New York 10017
`332-269-0030 (telephone)
`nick.groombridge@groombridgewu.com
`jennifer.wu@groombridgewu.com
`jenny.wu@groombridgewu.com
`jenna.deneault@groombridgewu.com
`mike.milea@groombridgewu.com
`allison.penfield@groombridgewu.com
`scott.miller@groombridgewu.com
`kyle.bersani@groombridgewu.com
`
`Attorneys for Nearmap US, Inc., Nearmap
`Australia Pty Ltd, and Nearmap Ltd
`
`
`
`Submitted this 12th day of April 2024
`
`By:
`
`
`
`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
