Opinion
22-cv-03218-VKD
02-15-2023
TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC., Plaintiff, v. FISHWOODCO GMBH dba LOOTS, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO UNSEAL ARBITRATION MATERIALS RE: DKT. NO. 21
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) initiated this action by filing a petition to confirm arbitration awards and for the entry of judgment against respondent FishwoodCo GmbH, doing business as Loots (“Loots”). Dkt. No. 1. Twitch previously sought to seal certain materials submitted in support of its petition. Dkt. No. 3. Although Twitch believed that the materials should be publicly filed, it sought to provisionally seal the materials in view of the parties' arbitration agreement and JAMS confidentiality rules, and because Twitch was unable to obtain Loots's consent to file unsealed versions of the documents. See id. In ruling on that motion, the Court noted that it was not persuaded that all of the information in question met the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing. Dkt. No. 15. Nevertheless, the Court provisionally granted Twitch's motion to seal, pending service and appearance by Loots and an opportunity for Loots to make a proper showing that the materials, or some portion of them, should remain under seal. Id. In the event Loots defaulted, the Court noted that it may revisit its sealing order. Id.
Twitch subsequently obtained leave to serve Loots by alternate means. Dkt. No. 17. Twitch contends that it has effected service of process on Loots. See Dkt. No. 18. At Twitch's request, the Clerk of Court entered Loots's default on January 18, 2023. Dkt. No. 20.
Twitch now requests that all provisionally sealed materials submitted in support of its petition be unsealed, and that it be permitted to file all such information in the public docket in support of an anticipated motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 21.
There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016); see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
Generally, “‘compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,'” including “the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)), or the use of records “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99); see also Ovonic Battery Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 14-cv-01637-JD, 2014 WL 2758756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (noting that sealing has been allowed regarding “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms found in a licensing agreement,” as well as “detailed product-specific financial information and customer information[.]”). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
In the present case, Loots's default has been entered, and there has been no response from Loots regarding whether the materials, or some portion of them, should remain under seal. The underlying arbitration apparently was conducted confidentially pursuant to Twitch's Terms of Service and JAMS International Arbitration Rules 16.1 and 16.2. See Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex A ¶ 8 (Dkt. No. 1-3) & Ex. B ¶ 15.d. (i) (Twitch Terms of Service stating that “arbitration will be conducted confidentially by a single arbitrator in accordance with the rules of JAMS[.]”); Dkt. No. 3-1 ¶ 4 (“JAMS' International Arbitration Rule 16.1 states: Unless otherwise required by law, or unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, the Tribunal, the parties, the Administrator and JAMS will maintain the confidentiality of the arbitration.”); Dkt. No. 3-1 ¶ 5 (“JAMS' International Arbitration Rule 16.2 states: Unless otherwise required by law, an award will remain confidential, unless all of the parties consent to its publication.”). However, the fact that the parties agreed to the confidentiality of the underlying arbitration proceedings does not, standing alone, provide a compelling reason to keep them under seal. See Ovonic Battery Co., Inc., 2014 WL 2758756 at *3 (declining to seal records based on parties' agreement that arbitration awards were to remain confidential).
Moreover, the Court has reviewed the matters that have been provisionally sealed and concludes that there are no compelling reasons to maintain those materials under seal. The majority of the content in question simply describes the nature of Twitch's allegations and claims, recites the procedural history of the underlying arbitration proceedings, provides legal argument, and contains some high-level summaries of the relief awarded in the arbitration. While portions of the materials sought to be unsealed include discussion of Loots's business and revenues, Twitch appears to rely on public sources for this information, none of which is more recent than 2017- five years ago. There is nothing in the record presently before the Court indicating that any information Twitch seeks to unseal constitutes trade secrets or other business information that might harm Loots's competitive standing.
Accordingly, the Court grants Twitch's motion to unseal as set forth in the table below. However, the Court cautions that this order does not necessarily extend to documents referenced within the listed pleadings and exhibits, which are not currently before the Court.
| Document | Portions to be Unsealed |
| Dkt. No. 3-2: Notice of Petition to Confirm and Petition to Confirm and Enforce; Memorandum of Points and Authorities | Redacted provisions that reproduce or rely on arbitration proceedings and/or final awards |
| Dkt. No. 3-3: Palacios Declaration in Support of Petition to Confirm and Enforce | Redacted provisions that reproduce or rely on arbitration proceedings and/or final awards |
| Dkt. No. 3-4: Palacios Declaration, Ex. A | Final arbitration award in its entirety |
| Dkt. No. 3-5: Palacios Declaration, Ex. B | Final arbitration award in its entirety |
| Dkt. No. 3-6: Palacios Declaration, Ex. C | Final arbitration award in its entirety |
| Dkt. No. 3-7: Palacios Declaration, Ex. D | Certified versions of arbitration awards in their entirety |
IT IS SO ORDERED.