1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GIA CALHOUN, Case No. 19-cv-08212-JCS

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL SHOULD NOT BE 10 FLRISH, INC., DENIED 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 106

12 Plaintiff Gia Calhoun moves to file one paragraph of her amended complaint under seal, 13 based on a confidentiality designation by non-party Springbig, Inc. The same proposed redaction 14 is at issue in two separate administrative motions to file under seal (dkts. 100, 106), one pertaining 15 to Calhoun’s since-granted motion for leave to amend, and the other pertaining to the amended 16 complaint she filed as a separate docket entry after the Court granted her motion. 17 Springbig filed a declaration by its Chief Financial Officer Paul Sykes in response to 18 Calhoun’s first administrative motion, which offers the following justification for sealing:

19 4. Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Class Action Complaint contains a gratuitous allegation taken from Springbig’s 30(b)(6) 20 deposition testimony, which Springbig (a non-party) has designated “Confidential.” While Springbig maintains that Plaintiff has taken 21 testimony out of context and, effectively, misquoted Springbig’s testimony, it is clear that the information Plaintiff discusses came 22 from Springbig’s confidential deposition testimony concerning its trade secret and confidential software and methodology. I understand 23 that Plaintiff sought to utilize this information previously, and it was sealed in a joint discovery letter pursuant to my declaration. [See Dkt. 24 81-83, 90.]

25 5. Springbig competes as a service provider in what is a highly competitive marketplace for loyalty software services, and maintains 26 the inner-workings of its software and its methodologies in strict confidentiality. The public disclosure of this information would cause 27 harm to Springbig and it would allow Springbig’s existing or potential ] Sykes Decl. (dkt. 103) 9] 4-5 (brackets in original). The deadline for responding to the second 2 || administrative motion has not yet expired. 3 A party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access to documents filed in 4 || judicial proceedings generally must establish “compelling reasons” to file documents under seal. 5 || See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). A lower 6 || standard of “good cause” applies to documents submitted in connection with motions that are no 7 || “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” including discovery motions. /d. at 1101. 8 || the fact that the Court previously sealed similar information in connection with a discovery 9 || dispute does not indicate that Springbig presented the “compelling reasons” necessary for sealing 10 || aportion of a complaint. The previous sealing motion also dealt with more specific information 11 than is at issue here. 12 Sykes’s current declaration does not meet the “compelling reasons” standard. For one 13 || thing, it is not clear that Springbig considers any portion of the paragraph at issue to be accurate. 14 || Ifitis not accurate, it cannot disclose Springbig’s trade secrets. The paragraph at issue also 15 consists of only two sentences describing Springbig’s alleged methods at a very high level. 16 Springbig has not addressed whether the methods described in this paragraph—to the extent it 17 || actually uses them—are common in the industry or unique to Springbig, such that using these 18 || methods provides Springbig an edge over its competition that it would lose if others knew of them. 19 Springbig must also address whether it takes steps to keep the particular information included in 20 || the amended complaint confidential in the course of its business. 21 Springbig is therefore ORDERED to show cause why these two administrative motions to 22 || file under seal should not be denied, by filing a more detailed declaration no later than September 23 13, 2021 addressing these concerns as to both the basic method described in the first sentence of 24 || paragraph 27 and the somewhat more specific process described in the second sentence of that 25 || paragraph. 26 IT ISSO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: September 7, 2021 CZ i Se C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge