Azenta, Inc. v. Andrews
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill L. Burkhardt (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Azenta, Inc. moved to file two exhibits under seal, seeking to redact proprietary business information such as customer names, addresses, and invoice numbers. The Court granted the second motion to file documents under seal and denied the first motion as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's second motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.“Plaintiff’s second motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing documents, which is the correct standard under Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana). The court found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information (customer names, addresses, invoice numbers) and that disclosure would be commercially detrimental. This follows the law and the record recited in the order. |
Plaintiff's first motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 39) is DENIED as moot.“Plaintiff's first motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 39) is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The first motion was rendered moot because the plaintiff filed a second, corrected motion (ECF No. 44) after fixing an error in the initial filing. Denying the superseded motion as moot is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's 'good cause' standard for sealing documents. It cites binding precedent (Kamakana) and persuasive district court cases to support the finding that the redactions are narrowly tailored and necessary to protect proprietary business information. The reasoning is sufficient to answer the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZENTA, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-01952-JLS-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 STEPHANIE ANDREWS, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 39; 44] 16 17 Before the Court are Plaintiff Azenta, Inc.’s Motions to File Documents Under Seal. 18 (ECF Nos. 39; 44.) In both motions, Plaintiff seeks to redact information from two exhibits 19 attached to its motions1 to compel. (See ECF Nos. 38-2 at 6–7; 39; 43-2 at 6–7; 44.) 20 21 1 On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed both a motion to compel a forensic examination 22 of Defendants’ systems (ECF No. 38) and one of the instant motions to file documents 23 under seal (ECF No. 39). In its motion to compel, Plaintiff improperly stated it submitted Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole “via email in native format”. 24 (ECF No. 38-2 at 6–7.) On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of lodgment 25 (ECF No. 41) and lodged the proposed sealed documents (ECF No. 42). On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel a forensic examination of Defendants’ 26 systems (ECF No. 43), fixing the error regarding how Exhibits A and B were submitted to 27 the Court, and filed the second of the instant motions to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44). The Court notes the instant motions and the documents they seek the Court 28 1 Plaintiff seeks to redact this information because it “contain[s] compilations of proprietary 2 Azenta information, including customer and affiliate names, customer addresses, purchase 3 order numbers, invoice numbers, shipment tracking numbers, and details regarding the 4 dates and weights of shipments made by those customers and affiliates to Azenta.” (ECF 5 Nos. 39 at 2; 44 at 2.) Plaintiff lodged with the Clerk’s Office both the unredacted and 6 redacted version of Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole in native 7 Microsoft Excel form. (ECF No. 42.) 8 From the Court’s review of the documents, Plaintiff seeks to seal only the shipper 9 names and addresses; consignee names and addresses; account, order, and invoice 10 numbers; freight bills; and taxes paid. (See ECF No. 42.) These redactions are narrowly 11 tailored. For instance, although the street addresses are redacted, the city, state, country, 12 and postal codes remain public. (Id.) 13 Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to make narrowly tailored redactions of its 14 business information in Exhibits A and B to the Omnibus Declaration of Donna Poole. See 15 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. 16 Ins. Co. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder & Parts, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 21-CV-1197- 17 W-MDD, 2023 WL 1806816 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) (sealing “confidential information 18 relating to [the movant’s] business, the disclosure of which [was] likely to be commercially 19 detrimental”); Primus Grp., Inc. v. Inst. for Env’t Health, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1267– 20 68 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (sealing information that would “reveal[] the identity of and 21 information about specific customers” because “competitors could use this information to 22 effectively target their marketing efforts without expending similar time and resources”). 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 24 1. Plaintiff’s second motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 44) is 25 GRANTED. 26 2. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s unredacted versions 27 of Exhibits A and B (ECF No. 42) UNDER SEAL. 28 /// 1 3. Plaintiff's first motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 39) is 2 DENIED as moot. 3 Dated: October 13, 2023 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 5 ited States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28