Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, 149 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. 127, 140, and 149. 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 H
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, 149 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. 127, 140, and 149. 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 Ho..
More
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, 149
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. 127, 140, and 149.
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 Nutiva, and to employment and medical history of the Named Plaintiffs. 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.
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)
127-3/(127-4) Exhibit 4 to the Portions of: Page 16, n. 26; and GRANTED
Declaration of Page 17, n. 30.
William P. Cole in
Support of
Defendant's
Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification —
Expert Report Dr.
Kent D. Van Liere
127-5/(127-6) Exhibit 5 to the Portions of: Page 8, lines 3, 4 GRANTED
Declaration of and 6 of ¶ 13; Page 11, line 4 of
William P. Cole in ¶ 18, Column (B) of Table 1;
Support of Page 12, line 2 of ¶ 19, line 2 of
Defendant's ¶ 20; Page 16, line 3 and 4 from
Opposition to the top of the page, line 3 of ¶
Plaintiff's Motion for 27(b); Page 17, lines 11-17 of ¶
Class Certification — 27(b); Page 18, line 4 of ¶
Rebuttal Declaration 27(c); Page 24, the dollar
of Dr. Denise N. figures in the vertical column of
Martin Figure 1 and names of States at
the bottom of Figure 1; and
Page 25, the dollar figures at the
top of each bar and the names
of the bar categories on the
bottom of each bar, on Figure 2.
164/(140-5) Plaintiff's Reply in Pages 3:3-8 and 4:11 GRANTED
Support of Motion for
Class Certification
140-6/(140-7) Reply Declaration of Paragraphs 4-6 GRANTED
Jack Fitzgerald in
Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Entire document Reply Ex. 1 Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(140-8)
140-6/(140-9) Reply Ex. 2 Pages 8:12-9:3, 14:21-15:13, GRANTED
15:21-25, 16:4-17:15, 68:8-19,
70:2-16, and 88:1
Entire document Reply Ex. 3 Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(140-10)
Entire document Reply Ex. 4 Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(140-11)
Entire document Reply Ex. 5 Entire document GRANTED
sealed/(140-12)
140-6/(140-13) Reply Ex. 6 Pages 126:23-127:19 GRANTED
140-14/(140-15) Reply Declaration of Paragraphs 2, 5-6, and 12 GRANTED
Shirin Delalat in
Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class
Certification
140-20/(140-21) Exhibit 1 to the Page 127:1-19 GRANTED
Declaration of Paul K.
Joseph in Support of
Plaintiff's Opposition
to Nutiva's Motion to
Strike the
Declarations of Dr.
Michael Dennis and
Mr. Colin Weir
140-16/(140-17) Reply Declaration of Footnotes 14-15 (on page 7) GRANTED
J. Michael Dennis,
Ph.D
140-18/(140-19) Reply Declaration of Paragraphs 11, 14 ("average GRANTED
Colin B. Weir price" and "average price/oz"
information), 19, and 44
140-22/(140-23) Exhibit 1 Declaration Page 61:8-11 GRANTED
of Melanie Persinger
in Support of Motion
to Strike Rebuttal
Declarations of Dr.
Denise Martin and Dr.
Kent Van Liere
140-24/(140-25) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 6 NUT340 GRANTED
140-26/(140-27) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 7 Entire document GRANTED
140-28/(140-29) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 8 Entire document GRANTED
140-30/(140-31) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 9 Entire document GRANTED
140-32/(140-33) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. NUT343-344 GRANTED
10
140-34/(140-35) Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. Entire document GRANTED
11
149-4/(149-5) Supplemental Paragraph 10, second line; GRANTED
Declaration of Dr. paragraph 10(a), fourth and fifth
Denise N. Martin lines; paragraph 18(b), fifth and
sixth lines; paragraph 32, first
through fourth lines, and eight
and last line.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, and 149. 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.
