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 DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND TO CONSIDER 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 396] 13 Before the Court are Defendants Zazzle Inc. (“Zazzle”) and Mohamed Alkhatib’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and To Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. ECF 396. Plaintiff Nicky Laatz (“Plaintiff”) filed sealing statement opposing Defendants’ administrative motion. ECF 408. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

18 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 20 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 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 1 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)). 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).

10 “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).

12 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).

20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Because the sealing motion concerns Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Designated Expert Witness at ECF 398 (“Daubert Motion”), the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Regis Metro Assocs., Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No. 20-CV-02309- DMR, 2022 WL 267443, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022).

25 Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal and to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with their Daubert Motion. ECF 396. Plaintiff filed a response indicating that she does not request sealing of the information identified by Defendants The Court addresses each sealing request in turn.

2 A. Materials that Defendants Identified as Containing Confidential Information Designated by Plaintiff— Exhibits R1 and R2 to the Declaration of Thomas 3 Nolan and Redactions at Page 22 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion.

4 The Court first considers the redactions identified by Defendants as containing confidential information designated by Plaintiff. See ECF 396 at 4. In Plaintiff’s opposition, Plaintiff clarified that she “[does] not request the sealing of the documents.” ECF 408 at 1. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits R1 and R2 to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan, and the redactions at page 22 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion.

9 B. Materials that Defendants Request Sealing—Redactions at Pages 12-14, 19-21, and 23 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Exhibits G, I, J, K, O, P and Q to the 10 Declaration of Thomas Nolan.

11 The Court next considers the redactions that Defendants request sealing. See ECF 396 at 2- 3. Plaintiff opposes the sealing of these redactions. ECF 408 at 1-2.

13 The Court addressed the parties’ requests below.

14 i. Redactions on Page 12 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Exhibits G, I, and J 15 to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan.

16 Defendants argue that the redactions on Page 12 of their Daubert Motion and Exhibits G, I, and J to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan contain confidential information relating to details of the technical operation of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool and of Zazzle’s servers. ECF 396 at 2-3; ECF 396-1 ¶¶ 4-5. In response, Plaintiff argues that the information is not confidential because it has “already been made public as a result of the Court’s order on a prior sealing motion.” ECF 408 at 1 (citing ECF 396-2, 396-8, 396-11, 396-1, ECF 382).

22 The Court finds that Defendants have failed to provide compelling reasons for their request to seal Page 12 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Exhibits G, I, and J to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan. The requested redaction contains information about Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool and of Zazzle’s servers and the information has been previously publicly disclosed on this docket. See ECF 382. Thus, Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the redactions on Page 12 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Exhibits G, I, and J to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan. See L.S. v. Henderson, No. 20- documents that are already publicly available elsewhere.”).

2 C. Redactions at Pages 13-14, 19-21, and 23 of Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Exhibits K, O, P and Q to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan.

Defendants argue that the redacted portions at Pages 13-14, 19-21, and 23 of their Daubert Motion and exhibits K, O, P and Q to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan “contain confidential information relating to the operation of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool; specific figures of Zazzle’s numbers of designers, designs, products, and users; and details of Zazzle’s sales, revenues, and expenses.” ECF 396 at 3. In her opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed “to make the evidentiary showing necessary to support sealing.” ECF 408 at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the materials contain “general terms” that do not warrant sealing. Id. at 2-3.

Applying the legal standard set forth above, the Court finds Defendants have provided compelling reasons to seal redacted portions at Pages 13-14, 19-21, and 23 of their Daubert Motion and exhibits K, O, P and Q to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.

13 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., 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, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted). The Court finds that these documents contain confidential business information regarding Zazzle’s designers, designs, products, sales, revenues, expenses, and numbers of users that, if publicly disclosed, would cause Zazzle competitive harm. See OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14- CV-01622-HSG, 2015 WL 5714851, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (finding good cause to seal information relating to a company’s internal process). On that basis, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to seal this narrowly tailored information contained at the redacted portions at Pages 13-14, 19-21, and 23 of their Daubert Motion and exhibits K, O, P and Q to the Declaration of Thomas Nolan.

III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 ECF Document Portion(s) Requested Ruling to Seal ECF 398/(ECF Defendants’ Motion to Redactions at Pages GRANTED as to 396-2) Exclude Testimony of 12-14, 19-21, 22 and redactions at Pages 13- Plaintiff’s Designated 23. 14, 19-21, and 23 Expert Witness for containing details of the operation of Zazzle’s proprietary Design Tool. Numbers of users and products sold. Figures for Zazzle’s revenues and figures and details for Zazzle’s expenses, and the resulting damages calculations. Larson Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; DENIED as to redactions at Page because the information has been previously publicly disclosed on this docket; and DENIED as to redactions at Page because Plaintiff does not request sealing.

16 ECF 398-8/(ECF Ex. G to Nolan Decl., Entire Document DENIED because the 396-3) Expert Report of Daniel information has been 17 Garrie previously publicly disclosed on this 18 docket.

19 ECF 398-10/(ECF Ex. I to Nolan Decl., Redacted portions on DENIED because the 396-4) Excerpts of the deposition page 122, as reflected information has been 20 transcript of Jason Li, dated in red highlighting on previously publicly July 17, 2024 Ex. I. disclosed on this 21 docket.

ECF 398-11/(ECF Ex. J to Nolan Decl., Redacted portions on DENIED because the 396-5) Excerpts of the deposition pages 40-43, as information has been transcript of Bobby Beaver, reflected in red previously publicly dated April 5, 2023 highlighting on Ex. J. disclosed on this docket.

ECF 398-12/(ECF Ex. K to Nolan Decl., Entire Document GRANTED for 396-6) Excerpts of Zazzle’s containing confidential Amended Responses and information relating to 26 Objections to Plaintiff’s the numbers of Interrogatories designers, designs, 27 products, and users on Zazzle. Larson Decl. ¶¶ □□□ Seal 1 to Seal 2 ECF 398-16/(ECF | Ex. O to Nolan Decl., Entire Document GRANTED for 396-7) Expert Report of Dominic containing confidential 3 Persechini information relating to Zazzle’s sales, 4 revenues, expenses, and numbers of users.

5 Larson Decl. [| 4-5.

ECF 398-17/CECF | Ex. P to Nolan Decl., Redacted portions on | GRANTED for 6 396-8) Excerpts of the deposition | page 202, as reflected | containing confidential transcript of Dominic in red highlighting on | information on the 7 Persechini, dated Ex. P. number of Zazzle’s 3 November 7, 2024 users. Larson Decl. □□□ 4-5, 9 ECF 398-18/(ECF | Ex. Q to Nolan Decl., Entire Document GRANTED for 396-9) Expert Report of Jeffrey containing confidential 10 Kinrich information relating to Zazzle’s sales, 11 revenues, expenses, and numbers of users.

12 Larson Decl. [| 4-5.

13 ECF 398-19/(ECF | Ex. R1 to Nolan Decl., Entire Document DENIED as because 396-10) Excerpts of the deposition Plaintiff does not 14 transcript of Nicky Laatz, request sealing. dated August 1, 2024.

15 ECF 398-20/(ECF | Ex. R2 to Nolan Decl., Entire Document DENIED as because 2 396-11) LAATZ05 16563, which Plaintiff does not 16 appears to be an email request sealing. exchange between Nicky 17 Laatz and a representative of Minted Z 18 Dated: August 28, 2025 22 fi FREEMAN 3 United States District Judge