Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-01921-BLF
10-16-2017
JUICERO, INC., Plaintiff, v. ITASTE CO., et al., Defendants.
ORDER SEALING PORTIONS OF ORDER DENYING JUICERO INC.'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On October 5, 2017, the Court filed its Order Denying Juicero Inc.'s Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Order") under seal and ordered the parties to submit proposed redactions, if necessary. ECF 100, 101. Defendants have submitted proposed redactions to the Order along with a supporting declaration. ECF 102. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants' proposal. Id. ¶ 6. Accordingly, the Court construes Defendants' submission as an unopposed motion to file under seal portions of the Order. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Defendants' proposed redactions and declaration submitted in support thereof. According to Defendants, certain portions of the Order contain references to Defendants' competitively sensitive and proprietary business information, including financial and marketing information relating to the planned distribution of iTaste's juicer product in the United States. Declaration of Kunyu Ching ¶ 3, ECF 102. Defendants state that this information is not publicly available, and making it such would cause competitive harm. Id. Accordingly, Defendants propose sealing portions of pages 12-13, as indicated in a proposed redacted version of the Order that Defendants have submitted at ECF 102-1.
The Court finds that Defendants have articulated good cause to seal certain portions of the Order. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2017
/s/_________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge