Case Information
*1 Case 3:21-cv-03532-JD Document 20 Filed 03/29/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY MOZZONE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03532-JD Plaintiffs, ORDER RE SEALING REQUEST v. Re: Dkt. No. 10 SALESFORCE.COM, INC., Defendant.
The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation , --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 4190165, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021), and that decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id . at *1 (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC , 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted). The party seeking to seal a complaint bears the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Google Play , 2020 WL 4190165, at *1 (quotation and citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id . (citation omitted).
Defendant Salesforce has filed an unopposed motion to seal portions of four paragraphs of the complaint, and several pages of Exhibit A. Dkt. No. 10. The proposed redactions are *2 Case 3:21-cv-03532-JD Document 20 Filed 03/29/22 Page 2 of 2 relatively limited, and Salesforce has provided facts indicating that they are related to proprietary information about its client relationships, sales, and compensation structure. Consequently, the motion to seal is granted. The parties are advised that this is an interlocutory determination, and the Court may unseal these materials as warranted later in the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2022 JAMES DONATO United States District Judge
2