Krush Technologies, Inc. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 9 10 KRUSH TECHNOLOGIES LLC, No. C 19-01841 WHA 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

13

ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

14 Defendant. / 15 16 Both parties filed administrative motions to file under seal portions of their discovery 17 letters and their attached exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 69, 72). Since the discovery letters bore no 18 relation to the merits, only “good cause” is required to justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety 19 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 Plaintiff’s administrative motion and supporting declaration simply asserts, without 22 further explanation, that the information sought to be filed under seal has been designated 23 “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by defendant pursuant to this district’s interim 24 model protective order (see Dkt. Nos. 69-1 ¶ 3). In our district, however, mere “[r]eference to a 25 stipulation or protective order that allows a…