Carbon Autonomous Robotic Systems Inc. v. Laudando & Associates LLC

Carbon Autonomous Robotic Systems · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · June 13, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-03012-DAD-JDP

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the parties’ renewed requests to seal and redact materials filed in connection with a motion for a preliminary injunction. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s compelling-reasons standard, the court finds that the requested redactions protect confidential business, financial, technical, pricing, sales, and customer information and are narrowly tailored. The court authorizes the redactions and orders the parties to file unredacted versions under seal within ten days.

Holdings

  1. The compelling-reasons standard applies to requests to seal or redact documents filed in connection with a preliminary-injunction motion when the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.
  2. Plaintiff established compelling reasons to seal and redact portions of its preliminary-injunction filings and narrowly tailored the redactions to confidential information.
  3. Defendant established compelling reasons to maintain redactions concerning confidential business, financial, technical, and plaintiff-related information, and its redactions were narrowly tailored.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the documents filed in connection with Carbon's motion for a preliminary injunction should be evaluated under the compelling-reasons standard for sealing judicial records.
  2. Whether plaintiff established compelling reasons and narrowly tailored redactions sufficient to seal portions of its motion, declarations, and exhibits.
  3. Whether defendant established compelling reasons and narrowly tailored redactions sufficient to maintain redactions in its opposition and related materials.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (15)

  • San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7, 598 (1978)(followed)
  • Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Apex.Ai, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23-cv-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023)(followed)
  • Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02234-KJM-DMC, 2021 WL 1212645, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021)(followed)
  • Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika, LLC, No. 8:22-cv-00325-SSS-DFM, 2022 WL 17401698, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…