1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 24-cv-03630-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER 10 ADOBE, INC., MANINDER SAWHNEY, PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE and DAVID WADHWANI, SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF 33] 12

13 14 Plaintiff United States of America (“the United States”) sues Adobe, Inc. and two of its 15 executives (collectively, “Defendants”) under the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Restore 16 Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, alleging that Defendants enroll consumers in Adobe 17 subscription plans without adequate disclosure of plan terms and utilize onerous cancellation 18 procedures to trap consumers into subscriptions they no longer want. See Compl., ECF 32. 19 This order addresses the United States’ administrative motion to consider whether material 20 in its complaint should be sealed based on Defendants’ designation of the material as confidential. 21 See Pl.’s Admin. Mot., ECF 33. Defendants have filed a statement clarifying that they seek 22 sealing of only one sentence in the complaint. See Defs.’ Statement, ECF 37. Defendants also 23 request sealing of the individual defendants’ home addresses, which were included in some of the 24 certificates of service filed by the United States. See id. The United States does not oppose 25 sealing the home addresses, but it contends that no portion of the complaint should be sealed. See 26 Pl.’s Response, ECF 38. 27 As discussed below, the request to seal material in the complaint is DENIED and the 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 3 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 4 Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 6 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 7 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 8 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.”

at 9 1097. Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 10 confidential by another party, the burden of establishing adequate reasons for sealing is placed on 11 the designating party. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 A. Material in the Complaint 14 The Court applies the compelling reasons standard to Defendants’ request to seal material 15 in the complaint, which clearly is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. 16 Defendants ask the Court to seal a single sentence in the complaint identifying the primary source 17 of Adobe’s subscription revenues, citing to cases holding that the compelling reasons standard is 18 satisfied by confidential and sensitive business information. See, e.g., Primus Grp., Inc. v. Inst. 19 for Env’t Health, Inc.,

, 1267 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (compelling reasons standard 20 is met by “a company’s confidential profit, cost, and pricing information that if publicly disclosed 21 could put the company at a competitive disadvantage”); In re Apple Inc. Device Performance 22 Litig., No. 5:18-MD-02827-EJD,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (“Courts 23 applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing 24 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 25 information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive 26 standing.”). 27 The United States argues that the cited cases do not support sealing here, because the 1 terms and does not contain any specific profit, cost, pricing, trade secret, product-specific, or other 2 information that would warrant sealing. The United States also points out that the declaration 3 Defendants submit in support of their sealing request states in conclusory fashion that “Adobe 4 keeps this financial information confidential” and that if it were revealed publicly “Adobe’s 5 competitors could modify their business strategy to unfairly compete with Adobe.” Sawhney 6 Decl. ¶ 3., ECF 37-1. The Court finds that those conclusory statements are not sufficient to meet 7 the compelling reasons standard, particularly where the material at issue is devoid of the type of 8 detail referenced in the cited cases. See Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 18-CV-06753-PJH, 9

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023) (declining to seal “generalized discussion of a 10 defendant’s sources of income”). 11 Defendants’ request to seal material in the complaint is DENIED. 12 B. Individual Defendants’ Home Addresses 13 The Court applies the good cause standard to Defendants’ request to seal the individual 14 defendants’ home addresses listed in certificates of service filed by the United States, as the 15 certificates of service are only tangentially related to the merits. The parties are in agreement that 16 the addresses should be sealed, and the Court is of the same view. See Berkley Ins. Co. v. 17 OakCare Med. Grp., No. 22-CV-05181-HSG,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2023) 18 (“The Court finds that there is good cause to seal Defendant Sharnoff’s address – particularly as 19 there is no compelling reason for the public to have this information – and GRANTS Defendant 20 Sharnoff’s request to redact her address from this document.”). The United States has already 21 replaced the documents containing the home addresses (ECF 1, 2, 7, 9-11) with documents 22 omitting the home addresses (ECF 31-36). 23 Defendants’ request to seal documents containing the individual defendants’ home 24 addresses – ECF 1, 2, 7, and 9-11 – is GRANTED. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Il. ORDER 2 (1) Defendants’ request to seal material in the complaint is DENIED. The United 3 States shall file an unredacted copy of the complaint on the public docket as soon 4 as is practicable. 5 (2) Defendants’ request to seal documents containing the individual defendants’ home 6 addresses is GRANTED. The following documents are hereby sealed: ECF 1, 2, 7 7, and 9-11. The United States has filed replacements for those documents, 8 omitting the home addresses, at ECF 31-36. 9 (3) This order terminates ECF 33. 10 11 Dated: July 23, 2024 a (12 howncena: | ETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28