Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS' MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF 341] Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff” or “Laatz”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed. ECF No. 341. Defendants filed a statement in support of sealing the materials identified in Laatz’s motion. ECF No. 343. Plaintiff submitted a response opposing Defendants’ statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 344.

For the reasons described below, Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Defendants’ Materials Should be Sealed is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

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 & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 22 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 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., 809 F.3d 1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

3 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations omitted)).

8 Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

14 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79- 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

22 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). A designating sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Because the sealing motion concerns Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ Opposition”), the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard.

6 See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (applying the “compelling reasons” standard when considering whether to seal portions of a motion for summary judgement and declarations in support of that motion).

9 Plaintiff’s sealing motion identifies certain portions that contain confidential information designated by Defendants, including portions of the MSJ Opposition, the Declaration of Patrick Ryan in support thereof (“Ryan Declaration”), the Declaration of Daniel Garrie in support thereof (“Garrie Declaration”), Exhibits 1, 3-8, 10-15, 19, 22, and 23 to the Ryan Declaration, and Exhibit C to the Garrie Declaration (“Garrie Report”). ECF 341 at 2-3. Defendants request the sealing of all portions identified by Plaintiff, except for highlighted portions in the MSJ Opposition, ECF 343-1 at 10 and 25, and Exhibit 1 to the Ryan Declaration. Compare ECF 343 at 2-4 with ECF 341 at 1-2.

16 Plaintiff, in her reply, opposes the sealing of all portions requested for sealing by Defendants in ECF 343 except Exhibit 10 to the Ryan Declaration, ECF 341-10. See ECF 344 at 1.

18 A. No Request for Redaction by Defendants 19 The Court first considers the redactions that Defendants did not request to seal, which include highlighted portions in the MSJ Opposition at page 10 and 25 and Exhibit 1 to the Ryan Declaration. See ECF 343 at 2, n. 1 (“Zazzle does not seek to maintain under seal information redacted at pages 10 or 25); compare ECF 343 at 2-4 with ECF 341 at 1-2. The Court DENIES the sealing of the highlighted portions in the MSJ Opposition at page 10 and 25 and Exhibit 1 to the Ryan Declaration because Defendants did not request the redactions.

25 B. Unopposed Redactions 26 Next, the Court considers the redactions that Plaintiff does not oppose, which includes Ex. 10 to the Ryan Declaration. See ECF 344 at 1. These portions include information relating to Zazzle’s internal business process for evaluating and purchasing font licenses and contains a witness’ personal address. See ECF 343-1 at 2, 3-4; ECF 341-11.

3 The Court agrees with Defendants as to their unopposed redactions in Exhibit 10 to the Ryan Declaration. The Court finds that Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal information that would reveal confidential information about Zazzle’s internal technical operations, technical search processes, and internal business processes. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 9 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss Plaintiff's network infrastructure and security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan.

12 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. C 10-3724 CW, 2014 WL 7387206, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) (granting motion to seal references to “confidential customer lists, business practices and testing procedures”). Further, the Court finds Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal a witness’ personal address. See Richter v. Oracle Am., Inc., 2023 WL 5663217, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) (sealing personal financial information by reasoning that a “party's legitimate interest in ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court filings”). Additionally, the Court finds Zazzle’s sealing requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue.

23 C. Opposed Redactions 24 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ remaining sealing request. See ECF 344. In those requests, Defendants seek to seal documents that contain information related to “Zazzle’s electronic systems, including the number of and the technical specifications of Zazzle’s servers; technical details of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool; details of Zazzle’s internal business processes related to the license terms for those new fonts, and the prices paid for those licenses; and confidential figures related to Zazzle’s revenue and its numbers of designs, designers, products, and users.” ECF 343 at 4. Defendants argue that this information is confidential and public disclosure of such information “would harm Zazzle’s competitive standing, including by giving competitors, or potential competitors, access to non-public information about Zazzle’s Design Tool, other electronic systems, and internal business processes.” Id. at 5. Further, Defendants request to seal portions of deposition transcripts that contain witnesses’ personal addresses. Id. 8 Plaintiff opposes the sealing on three grounds. ECF 344 at 1. First, Plaintiff contends that “Defendants offer only conclusory, unsubstantiated allegations of purported harm that would occur if Defendants’ materials are filed on the public docket.” Id. Second, as to the Ryan Declaration and Exhibits 4, 5, 8, 12-15, 19, and 22 to the Ryan Declaration, Plaintiff contends that portions to be sealed relate to a specific business decision, “made more than seven years ago,” that amount to “stale information” to which Defendants did not articulate “how disclosure of this stale information about a decision that was made seven years ago will cause competitive harm.” Id. at 2. Third, as to the Garrie Declaration, Garrie Report, and Exhibits 7 and 23 to the Ryan Declaration, Plaintiff contends that information requested to be sealed by Defendants is already public information filed on the public docket. See id. 18 The Court finds that Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal information that would reveal confidential information about Zazzle’s internal technical operations, technical search processes, internal business processes, customer and revenue information. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds a compelling reason to seal the portions of this exhibit that discuss Plaintiff's network infrastructure and security systems.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, CW, 2014 WL 7387206, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) (granting motion to seal references to “confidential customer lists, business practices and testing procedures”). In regard to Plaintiff’s second argument, the Court finds that this information is relevant to the case and confidential, such that public disclosure could cause harm to Zazzle’s competitive standing. In regard to Plaintiff’s third argument, the Court finds that the public files Plaintiff points to are not as specific or contains the information that Defendants request to seal. Compare ECF 338-95 ¶¶ 9.m-9.ss with ECF 341- 20 at 9-20; compare ECF 49-2 ¶¶ 3-4 and ECF 102-6 ¶¶ 3-4, with ECF 341-9 at 130-139.

8 Further, the Court finds Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal multiple witnesses’ personal addresses. See Richter v. Oracle Am., Inc., 2023 WL 5663217, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2023) (sealing personal financial information by reasoning that a “party’s legitimate interest in ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court filings”). Additionally, the Court finds Defendants’ sealing requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue.

14 III. ORDER 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS redactions as outlined in the below chart. The Court directs Defendants to file a revised redacted version of the MSJ Opposition, the Ryan Declaration, the Garrie Declaration, and their supporting exhibits that comport with the Court’s order into the public record within 7 days from issuance of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).

ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 342 Plaintiff Nicky Redacted portions GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED /(341-2) Laatz’s Opposition at pages 5, 12-13, IN PART as follows.

22 to Defendants’ 20, 22-23.

Motion for GRANTED as to excerpts highlighted 23 Summary Judgment at pages 5, 12-13, 20, 22-23 as containing confidential information relating to Zazzle’s internal business 25 process for evaluating and purchasing font licenses and details of the 26 technical operation of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool and Zazzle’s 27 servers. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling DENIED as to excerpts highlighted at 3 pages 10 and 25, as Defendants do not seek to maintain these portions under 4 seal.

342-1/ Declaration of Patrick Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential (341-3) Ryan in support of pages 3-4. information relating to Zazzle’s 6 Motion for Summary internal business process for Judgment evaluating and purchasing font 7 licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

8 342-2/ Ryan Decl. Ex. 1 N/A DENIED as Defendants do not (341-4) request sealing.

10 342-4 Ryan Decl. Ex. 3, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-5) Zazzle’s Amended information relating to the numbers of 11 Responses and designers, designs, products, and Objections to users on Zazzle. ECF 343-1, Larson 12 Interrogatories Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

342-5 Ryan Decl. Ex. 4, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-6) excerpts of the July pages 6, 53, 165- information relating to Zazzle’s 167, 188.

14 16, 2024 transcript of internal business process for Monica McGhie evaluating and purchasing font 15 licenses and containing the Witness’ personal address. ECF 343-1, Larson 16 Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7.

17 342-6 Ryan Decl. Ex. 5, May Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-7) 4, 2017 internal email information relating to Zazzle’s 18 from Mohamed internal business process for Alkhatib evaluating and purchasing font 19 licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

342-7 Ryan Decl. Ex. 6, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-8) excerpts of the July pages 93-95. information relating to Zazzle’s 16, 2024 transcript of internal business process for 22 Patrick Haley evaluating and purchasing font licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 23 4-5.

342-8 Ryan Decl. Ex. 7, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-9) excerpts of the July pages 6, 130-139. information relating to details of the 25 17, 2024 transcript of technical operation of Zazzle’s Jason Li proprietary Design Tool and 26 containing the Witness’ personal address. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 27 4-5, 7.

ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 342-9 Ryan Decl. Ex. 8, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-10) excerpts of the July pages 10, 47, 86, 88. information relating to Zazzle’s 3 26, 2024 transcript of internal business process for Catherine Sheu evaluating and purchasing font 4 licenses and containing the Witness’ personal address. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7.

6 342-11 Ryan Decl. Ex. 10, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-11) excerpts of the August pages 9, 140- 142, information relating to Zazzle’s 7 7, 2024 transcript of 208-209. internal technical operations, its Mohamed Alkhatib technical search processes for 8 discovery in this litigation, Zazzle’s internal business process for evaluating and purchasing font 10 licenses, and containing the Witness’ personal address. ECF 343-1, Larson 11 Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7.

342-12 Ryan Decl. Ex. 11, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-12) Zazzle’s Second information relating to Zazzle’s 13 Amended Responses revenue and technical details of and Objections to Zazzle’s computing equipment. ECF 14 Interrogatories 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

342-13 Ryan Decl. Ex. 12, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-13) May 4, 2017 email information relating to Zazzle’s from Mohamed internal business process for Alkhatib to Bobby evaluating and purchasing font 17 Beaver licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

18 342-14 Ryan Decl. Ex. 13, Redacted portions at GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-14) excerpts of the August pages 35, 42-45. information relating to Zazzle’s 19 30, 2024 transcript of internal business process for Liana Larson evaluating and purchasing font licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 21 4-5.

342-15 Ryan Decl. Ex. 14, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-15) May 4, 2017 email information relating to Zazzle’s from Mohamed internal business process for Alkhatib to Bobby evaluating and purchasing font 24 Beaver licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.

25 342-16 Ryan Decl. Ex. 15, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-16) excerpt from internal information relating to Zazzle’s 26 Zazzle spreadsheet internal business process for regarding font evaluating and purchasing font purchases licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. ¶¶ || (342-20 | Ryan Decl. Ex. 19, Redacted portion at | GRANTED as containing the excerpts of the Sept. | Page 7. Witness’ personal address. ECF 343- 3 12, 2024 transcript of 1, Larson Decl. {[f 4, 7.

Katrina Liu || (342-23 Ryan Decl. Ex. 22, Entire document GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-17) | screenshot of internal information relating to Zazzle’s Zazzle folder of font internal business process for 6 purchase information evaluating and purchasing font licenses. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. □□□□ 7 4-5. g 342-24 |Ryan Decl. Ex. 23, Redacted portions at} GRANTED as containing confidential /(341-18) | excerpts of the April 5,| Pases 164-166. information relating to details of the 9 2023 transcript of technical operation of Zazzle’s Bobby Beaver servers. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. □□□ 10 4-5.

342-49 | Declaration of Daniel | Redacted portions at) GRANTED as containing confidential |! 341-19)|Garrie in support of | Pages 7-8. information relating to details of the 12 Motion for Summary technical operation of Zazzle’s : : Judgment proprietary Design Tool and of & 13 Zazzle’s servers. ECF 343-1, Larson Decl. 4 4-5.

14 || 342-52 | Garrie Decl. Ex. C Entire document | GRANTED as containing confidential (341-20) information relating to details of the Q 15 . . technical operation of Zazzle’s A 16 proprietary Design Tool and of Zazzle’s servers. ECF 343-1, Larson it Decl. 4-5.

Z 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: February 5, 2025 22 Ayylwy CMM BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge