1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 KRUSH TECHNOLOGIES LLC, No. C 19-01841 WHA 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 13 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 14 Defendant. / 15 16 Both parties filed administrative motions to file under seal portions of their discovery 17 letters and their attached exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 69, 72). Since the discovery letters bore no 18 relation to the merits, only “good cause” is required to justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety 19 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 20 Honolulu,

, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 Plaintiff’s administrative motion and supporting declaration simply asserts, without 22 further explanation, that the information sought to be filed under seal has been designated 23 “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by defendant pursuant to this district’s interim 24 model protective order (see Dkt. Nos. 69-1 ¶ 3). In our district, however, mere “[r]eference to a 25 stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential 26 is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79- 27 5(d)(1)(A). Nor did defendant, the designating party, file a supporting declaration, as required 28 by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Plaintiff’s motion is thus DENIED. Plaintiff shall file an 1 Defendant’s motion to seal portions of its own discovery letter and exhibit and supporting declaration similarly cite its “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation, but slightly elaborate further that the documents contain defendant’s confidential 4}| technical material relating to its technology (Dkt. Nos. 72 at 2; 72-143). But good cause 5 || requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the documents are made public. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 7} Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). “[B]road, conclusory allegations of potential harm” 8 || are insufficient. Foltz,

. Here, mere assertion that the information at issue is confidential, by itself, fails to make a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm 10 || resulting from disclosure. This is particularly true where defendant failed to seek redaction of 11 || similar information in connection with plaintiff's discovery letter. Accordingly, defendant’ □ 12 || motion to seal is DENIED. Defendant shall file an unredacted version of its documents on the 3 13 || public docket by NOVEMBER 7 AT NOON. i M4 A 5 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: October 31, 2019. Le Pr be WILLIAM ALSUP 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28