Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, 148 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court are the parties administrative motions to seal various documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, and 148. I. LEGAL STANDARD Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 , 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamaka
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, 148 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court are the parties administrative motions to seal various documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, and 148. I. LEGAL STANDARD Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 , 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakan..
More
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, 148
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Pending before the Court are the parties administrative motions to seal various documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 86, 90, 94, 133, 144, and 148.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). "This standard derives from the common law right `to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). "[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process" and "significant public events." Id. at 1178-79 (quotation omitted). "In general, `compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such `court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id.
The Court must "balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must "establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the "compelling reasons" standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and financial information relating to the operations of BlackRock. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F.Supp.2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and exhibits as containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling reasons to grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal.
For other documents listed below, the parties have failed to narrowly tailor the redactions to BlackRock confidential business information.1
The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:
Docket Number Document Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed Ruling (basis)
Public/(Sealed)
86-3/(86-5, 86-6) Motion for Relief and Portions of motion, pages 6, 10; GRANTED
Declaration portions of attached declaration,
pages 3-4.
No Public Version Attachment A, Portions of RFPs, pages 1-8, DENIED (no
Filed/(86-7) Plaintiffs' second set 11, 15-16; all of RFAs pages 4-36 supporting
of RFPs, third set of declaration)
interrogatories, and
first set of RFAs
86-4/(86-8) Attachment B, August Entire document DENIED
31 Meeting Minutes (redactions not
narrowly
tailored)
No Public Version Attachment C, Entire document DENIED
Filed/(86-9) September 19 (redactions not
Meeting Minutes narrowly
tailored)
Entire document Attachment D, Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(86-10) Contribution
performance
evaluation report
Entire document Attachment E, Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(86-11) Contribution
performance
evaluation report
Entire document Ex. B, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-3) performance report
Entire document Ex. C, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-4) performance report
Entire document Ex. D, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-5) performance report
Entire document Ex. E, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-6) performance report
Entire document Ex. F, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-7) performance report
Entire document Ex. G, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-8) performance report
Entire document Ex. H, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-9) performance report
Entire document Ex. I, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-10) performance report
Entire document Ex. J, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-11) performance report
Entire document Ex. K, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-12) performance report
Entire document Ex. L, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-13) performance report
Entire document Ex. M, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-14) performance report
Entire document Ex. N, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-15) performance report
Entire document Ex. O, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-16) performance report
Entire document Ex. P, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-17) performance report
Entire document Ex. Q, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-18) performance report
Entire document Ex. R, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-19) performance report
Entire document Ex. S, Investment Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(90-20) performance report
No Public Version Plaintiffs' Reply in Portions of pages 5-6, 14 GRANTED
Filed/(94-8) Support of Mot. for
Relief
No Public Version Supplemental Decl. of Portions of paragraphs 5-6 DENIED (no
Filed/(94-9) Mary Bortscheller compelling
reason/good
cause)
No Public Version Ex. A, Defendant's Portions of pages 5, 10-17, 19-23 DENIED (no
Filed/(94-10) objections/responses objection to
to plaintiffs' second public filing)
set of RFPs
No Public Version Ex. B, Schedule of Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(94-11) investments objection to
public filing)
No Public Version Ex. C, Cash Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(94-12) Equivalent Fund II objection to
public filing)
133-3/(133-12) Plaintiffs' Motion for Portions of pages 4, 6-7, 10-12 GRANTED
Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint
133-4/(133-13) Declaration in support Paragraphs 12, 22-25, 27 GRANTED
of motion for leave to
file second amended
complaint
133-5/(133-14) Ex. A, Second Portions of pages 12, 13, 18, 19, GRANTED
amended complaint 22, 23, 25-27, 29, 30, 32-35,
41, 50, 53, 54, 60, 67, 68-80,
82-87, 89-98, 107, 113, 118,
122, 128, 129
No Public Version Ex. B, Excerpt from Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(133-15) Nedl depo. objection to
public filing)
No Public Version Ex. C, Excerpt from Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(133-16) Nedl depo. objection to
public filing)
No Public Version Ex. D, Excerpt from Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(133-17) Nedl depo. objection to
public filing)
No Public Version Ex. E, Excerpts from Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(133-18) Castille depo. objection to
public filing)
Entire document Ex. F, Statement of Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(133-19) Work
Entire document Ex. G, Statement of Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(133-20) Work
144-4/(144-6) Defendants' Portions of pages i, 5-9, 11-12, GRANTED
Opposition to 18, 19, 21
Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File a
Second Amended
Complaint
Entire document Ex. A, Meeting Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7) minutes
Entire document Ex. B, Slide deck Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7)
144-5/(144-7) Ex. C, Excerpts from Page 155 GRANTED
Feliciani depo.
Entire document Ex. D, Email Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7)
Entire document Ex. E, Email Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7)
Entire document Ex. F, BlackRock Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7) Savings Plain,
Articles I, XI
Entire document Ex. G, Excerpts from Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-7) plan sections
Entire document Ex. J, Excerpts from Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-8) plan sections
Entire document Ex. K, Excerpts from Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(144-9) plan sections
148-3/(148-14) Plaintiffs' Reply in Portions of pages 1, 3-8, 12-15 GRANTED
Support of Motion for
Leave to File SAC
148-4/(148-15) Yau Decl. Portions of pages 2-7 GRANTED
148-5/(148-16) Ex. 1, Email Portions of page 2 DENIED (no
objection to
public filing)
Entire document Ex. 2, Excerpt from Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(148-17) Nedl Depo.
148-7/(148-17) Ex. 3, Plaintiffs' Portions of pages 4-5 GRANTED
Second Set of
Interrogatories
148-8/(148-18) Ex. 4, Defendants' Portions of pages 3-4 GRANTED
objections/responses
to Plaintiffs' second
set of interrogatories
No Public Version Ex. 5, Investment Entire document DENIED (not
Filed/(148-20) Policy Statement narrowly
tailored)
Entire document Ex. 6, BlackRock Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(148-21) Retirement Savings
Plan
No Public Version Ex. 7, Managing Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(148-22) ERISA Assets objection to
public filing)
Entire document Ex. 8, Retirement Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(148-23) Committee Charter
No Public Version Ex. 9, Investment Entire document DENIED (no
Filed/(148-24) Fund for Employee objection to
Benefit Trusts public filing)
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 86, 94, 133, and 148 and GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 90 and 144. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied and/or for which no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.