Anderson v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 4:15-cv-02172
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JULIETTE MORIZUR, et al., Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND 9 v. DENYING, IN PART, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE'S MOTION TO 10 SEAWORLD PARKS AND INTERVENE FOR PURPOSES OF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., UNSEALING DOCUMENTS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 604 12

13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to intervene filed by Earth Island 14 Institute (“EII”). The Court has considered the papers’, relevant legal authority, and the record in 15 this case, and (it finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. 16 L.R. 7-1(b). The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2023 and HEREBY 17 GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, EII’s motion. 18 BACKGROUND 19 The procedural history and facts underlying this dispute, including EII’s involvement in 20 the litigation, have been recounted in prior orders and will not be repeated here. See, e.g., Morizur 21 v. SeaWorld Parks and Entm’t, Inc., No. 15-cv-2172-JSW, 2020 WL 6044043 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 22 2020); Dkt. Nos. 188-189, 590. Before trial, Plaintiffs designated four testimonial experts: Dr. 23 Ingrid Visser, Dr. Javier Gallego, Dr. E.C.M. Parsons, Dr. David Duffus. They also designated 24 EEI officers Mark Palmer and David Phillips as consulting experts. (Dkt. No. 604-2, Declaration 25 of David Phillips (“Phillips Decl.”), ¶ 3.) 26 SeaWorld moved to exclude testimony from each of the testifying experts (“Daubert 27 motions”) and filed motions to seal in conjunction with their Daubert motions, arguing there was 1 good cause to seal portions of the briefs and supporting exhibits. The Court granted each motion 2 to seal finding “good cause” to do so. (Dkt. Nos. 387-388, 403-404 (the “Report Redactions”).) 3 The Court never ruled on the Daubert motions, because it bifurcated the issue of standing 4 from the merits, held a bench trial, and found the Plaintiffs lacked standing. Morizur, 2020 WL 5 6044043, at 2. 6 The Court will address additional facts as necessary in the analysis. 7 ANALYSIS 8 EII seeks to intervene in the case, pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 24(b)(2), for 9 the limited purpose of asking the Court to unseal the Report Redactions. See San Jose Mercury 10 News, Inc. v. District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Mercury News”) (“Nonparties 11 seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking permissive intervention 12 under Rule 24(b)(2).”). Rule 24(b) generally requires a movant to show “(1) an independent 13 ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between 14 the movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & 15 Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 2013). However, when a third party seeks to intervene 16 solely to unseal a court record, they do “not need to demonstrate independent jurisdiction or a 17 common question of law or fact.” Cosgrove v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 770 Fed. Appx. 793, 18 795 (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992)). 19 SeaWorld argues EII’s motion is untimely. Local Rule 79-5(g)(3) permits a motion to 20 unseal to be made at any time, but Rule 24 requires a court to consider “(1) the stage of the 21 proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the 22 reason for and length of the delay.” Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1001. EII relies solely on the 23 provisions of the Local Rule to explain why it is seeking relief now. This case is now closed and 24 SeaWorld’s appeal has been resolved. Thus, permitting EII to intervene at this stage poses no 25 prejudice in terms of delaying the proceedings. The Court will not deny the motion on the basis 26 that it is untimely, but for reasons discussed below, the Court finds that EII has not acted in an 27 expeditious manner. 1 countervailing interests opposing public disclosure can overcome the [strong] presumption in 2 favor of” public access. Id. (citing Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102). “[P]ublic access to filed 3 motions and their attachments … will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related 4 to the merits of case.” Ct’r for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 5 2016). Where that is the case, a court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana v. 6 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). 7 [C]ompelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court 8 files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 9 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. … The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 10 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. 11 12 Id. at 1179. 13 EII was involved in the search for plaintiffs, focused the search in the Bay Area because it 14 perceived it to be a favorable venue, and had the right to be consulted on litigation strategy. (See, 15 e.g., Dkt. No. 609-1, Declaration of John Simpson, ¶¶ 3, 8; Dkt. No. 612-1 (Deposition of Mark 16 Palmer (“Palmer Depo.”) at 16:15-18:5, 59:1-16, 61:4-15, 101:1-102:8); Dkt. No. 612-2, Simpson 17 Decl., Ex. F. (Engagement Letter).) The Court reiterates its conclusions from prior Orders that 18 SeaWorld has not demonstrated that counsel’s or EII’s conduct is sanctionable. Yet, those facts 19 demonstrate that EII is no stranger to this litigation. Mr. Palmer testified that EII was motivated to 20 obtain documents from SeaWorld and that EII hoped at some point the Court would unseal the 21 materials, he also testified that EII was precluded from disclosing the documents to the public. 22 (Palmer Depo. at 267:20-22, 269:12-270:3.) 23 The terms of the Stipulated Protective Order provide that “the confidentiality obligations 24 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing 25 or a court order otherwise directs.” (Dkt. No. 121, Stipulated Protective Order, ¶ 4; see also Dkt. 26 No. 191 at ECF p. 27; Palmer Depo. at 254:19-255:2, 262:9-24, 264:10-21.)1 The terms of the 27 ] Protective Order also provide that “all documents and information produced in discovery ... shall 2 || only be used for purposes of litigating this case.” (/d., J 1.) EII states that its purpose in moving 3 || to unseal the documents is so that it may “properly examine expert testimony regarding the health 4 || of SeaWorld’s orcas and SeaWorld’s practices regarding its care of captive orcas, and further 5 inform the public on the condition” of those orcas. (Mot. at 2:3-6; see also Phillips Decl., ff 6, 11, 6 16-17.) 7 It is true that each of the experts reports went to the merits of Plaintiffs’ case and the 8 || motions to which they were attached can be considered “more than tangentially related” to the 9 merits, which would favor public access to the documents. However, the Court did not consider, 10 || let alone rule on, the motions to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs had standing. It did refer 11 to the experts’ qualifications when it ruled on the motion for attorneys’ fees, but those portions of 12 || the report were not sealed. Therefore, lifting the seal would not further the “public interest in E 13 || understanding the judicial process ... and the bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” □□□ at 14 1102 (internal citations and quotations omitted); cf In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD- 3 15 || 02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013). In addition, the Court 16 || concludes that SeaWorld has demonstrated there are compelling reasons to maintain the i 17 || documents under seal by attesting they contain information such as non-public business Z 18 information and veterinary records. 19 Accordingly, although the Court grants EII’s request to intervene, it concludes that any 20 || interest in public access is outweighed by the interests in maintaining the Report Redactions under 21 seal and denies EII’s motion to unseal those documents. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: January 30, 2023 / / L/ □□ 24 \LOFRM «x JEFFREY S/WHITE } 25 United Stay) District/Aidge 26 / 27 28 1 Ex Ly has published redacted versions of the expert reports on its website. (Simpson Decl., J