Ashtiani v. Applied Materials Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AMIR ASHTIANI, Case No. 20-cv-00463-BLF

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT v. APPLIED MATERIALS’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

APPLIED MATERIALS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant Applied Materials, Inc. has filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions its opposition brief, exhibits attached to the opposition brief, and exhibits submitted in support of the motion to reopen this case. See Mot., ECF 34. Applied Materials requests sealing because the materials contain references to the confidential settlement agreement in this case. See Mot., Decl. of Daniel E. Lassen (“Lassen Decl.”), ECF 34-1. For the reasons stated below, Applied Materials’ 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 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings 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. sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” In addition, 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). II. DISCUSSION

Courts in this Circuit have found it appropriate to seal confidential settlement agreements. See, e.g., United Rentals, Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-01876-JCM, 2012 WL 9 5418355, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 2, 2012) (“[A] prior settlement agreement is generally an important factor weighing against disclosure when continued secrecy was a significant condition of reaching settlement.”) (internal citation omitted). The Court has reviewed Applied Materials’s sealing motion and the Lassen Declaration submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Applied Materials has articulated good cause to seal certain portions of the cited brief and exhibits. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below.

ECF No. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning

33 Applied Materials’s GRANTED as to the The highlighted portions Opposition to Motion to highlighted portions contain confidential Reopen Case at 1:22, 1:26, 2:1, information relating to the 2:12- 13, 3:19. confidential terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. Lassen Decl.

¶¶ 2-3. Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to Applied Materials. Lassen Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.

33-2 Ex. A, Settlement GRANTED as to the This document is the Agreement entire document confidential Settlement Agreement. Lassen Decl.

¶¶ 2-3. Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to Applied Materials. Lassen Decl. ¶¶ I Dispute letter highlight portions on | contain confidential pages 2 and 3. The information relating to the 2 redacted version of confidential terms of the this Document at Parties’ Settlement 3 ECF 34-9 shall Agreement. Lassen Decl. replace Plaintiffs {| 2-3. Public disclosure of 4 version of the this information would 5 document at ECF 31- | cause harm to Applied 1. Materials. Lassen Decl. □□□□ 6 3-4. g Il. ORDER

9 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS Applied Materials’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its opposition brief and exhibits submitted in support of that ll brief and the motion to reopen the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

|} Dated: July 28, 2021 én) NM.

15 Ss

BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

= 17

Z 18