1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LOGICEASE SOLUTIONS INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00830-JD

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 7 10 SOFTWORKS AI, LLC, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff LogicEase Solutions asks to file a redacted version of its complaint and to seal 14 entirely a contract and its amendments attached as exhibits. Dkt. No. 7. The only reason given for 15 the requests is that the contracts have a confidentiality provision, and defendant Softworks AI 16 asked LogicEase to file the complaint and exhibits under seal. Id. at 2. The proposed redactions 17 and sealings are denied. 18 “A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the ‘strong presumption in favor of access to court 19 records.’” DZ Reserve, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 20 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 21 (9th Cir. 2003)). Public access maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of 22 justice, and protects the integrity and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the 23 federal judiciary is done in open court. 24 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 25 exception to the rule, and a party that asks to redact or seal a filed document must present a good 26 reason for restricting the public’s right to transparency in judicial proceedings. A particularized 27 showing of good cause is required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a 1 records involving dispositive motions and the merits of a case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 2 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 3 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 A good argument can be made that the compelling reason standard applies -- few 5 documents are more directly related to the merits than the plaintiff's complaint -- but the Court 6 || need not reach a final conclusion about that because the sealing requests do not pass either test. 7 The proposed redactions to the complaint involve purely generic information, down to the 8 frivolous level of the date of a contract between the parties and a one-sentence request for 9 || attorney’s fees. See Dkt. No. 7-3 J] 1,52. So too for the exhibits to the complaint, which the 10 || parties ask to seal in their entirety even though they look to be nothing more than a standard 11 software license agreement and amendments. Dkt. Nos. 7-5, 7-6. 12 If there is sensitive commercial or proprietary information in any of this, the parties 13 certainly have not identified it. The sole basis for the requests is that the contracts have a 14 || confidentiality clause. That is far from enough to close the door to the public’s right of access. 3 15 See Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02098-JD, 2015 WL 13064913, at *1 (N.D. Cal. a 16 || Apr. 13, 2015). The sealing requests also violate our District’s local rules. “A sealing order may 3 17 issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 18 || protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 19 || “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Jd. The parties 20 || did nothing to comply with these standards. 21 Consequently, the redaction and sealing requests are denied in toto. Plaintiff will re-file 22 || the complaint and exhibits without redactions by June 22, 2021. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 15, 2021 25 26

JAMES JPONATO

27 United States District Judge 28