Opinion
20-cv-06393-JD
07-24-2023
REFLEX MEDIA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
JAMES DONATO United States District Judge.
The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F.Supp.3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted)
Defendants SuccessfulMatch.com and Successful Match Canada (Successful Match) and plaintiffs Clover8 Investments and Reflex Media, Inc. (RMI) have asked to seal a number of documents filed in connection with discovery disputes. Dkt. Nos. 54, 56, 70, 74.
Sealing is denied across the board. The Court's specific sealing determinations are stated in the attached chart. See Ex. A. For most of the sealing requests, no designating party filed a statement in support of sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
For the other sealing requests, plaintiffs offered only perfunctory claims that the documents at issue contain confidential information that should be shielded from public view. For example, they say that certain documents contain information revealing RMI's company structure, operations, and profit and revenue. Dkt. No. 76 at 2-3. But plaintiffs fail to explain beyond conclusory statements why they will suffer competitive harm if this information is disclosed. See, e.g., id. (stating RMI's confidential information “could be used by [RMI]'s competitors to gain an unfair advantage against it”). “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for example do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, are insufficient for sealing.” DZ Reserve v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021).
Consequently, the “‘default posture of public access prevails,'” and the sealing requests are all denied. In re Google Play, 556 F.Supp.3d at 1108 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the documents by July 31, 2023. Civ. L.R. 79-5(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal
(Table Omitted)