WO
BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., Defendants. I. Before the Court are numerous motions to seal various documents and exhibits (Docs. 294, 313, 319, 339, 343, 357, 361, 365, 370, 381, 402). The motions are fully briefed, and the Court rules as follows. II. The public has a right to inspect and copy public judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 567 (1978). Although the right is not absolute, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party requesting to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by either showing “compelling reasons” if the record is a dispositive pleading or “good cause” if the record is a non-dispositive pleading. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. Motions to seal a summary judgement motion or its exhibits must meet the compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 1181. In Doc. 294, BBK seeks to seal certain sensitive financial information and settlement strategies, including sales numbers and ratios for certain RAW products, taxes and duties paid by BBK, and settlement terms exchanged between BBK and CCA. The motion is unopposed by CCA. (Doc. 334.) Compelling reasons justify sealing this information. Sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing may be filed under seal despite the public’s general right to inspect and copy judicial records. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598–99; see also MD Helicopters Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. CV-17-02598-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 2184762, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2019). With respect to three of its pending motions to seal (Docs. 313, 339, 357), CCA filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Documents in Connection with a Partial Withdrawal of Motions to Seal (Doc. 362). In that motion, CCA informs the Court that, following conferral with BBK’s counsel, it has elected to withdraw certain portions of its motions to seal. CCA also requests leave to file new versions of the redacted documents previously filed on the public docket, in order to un-redact the portions CCA no longer requests be filed under seal. CCA’s motion is unopposed (Doc. 371) and will be granted. Thus, the Court will consider CCA’s motions to seal (Docs. 313, 339, 357) only as amended.1 In Doc. 313, CCA moves to seal portions of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir and exhibits 3–5 thereto, along with portions of its motion to exclude Francis Burns and exhibits 1–5 thereto. (Docs. 313, 362, 375.) In Doc. 339, CCA moves to seal portions of its opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Khurshid Kohja; portions of its opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and exhibits A–C thereto; and portions of its opposition to BBK’s motions to exclude Dr. Elisabeth Honka and Dr. Tülim Erdem and exhibits B and I thereto. (Docs. 339, 375) In Doc. 357, CCA moves to seal 1 In its reply (Doc. 375), CCA agreed to withdraw additional portions of its motions to seal. portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec; portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir; and portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Francis Burns. (Docs. 357, 375.) These motions to seal are unopposed (except as described above). Because the motions and exhibits are non- dispositive, CCA need only show “good cause” for limiting the public’s access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. CCA has done so. The information CCA seeks to file under seal involves the company’s past sales and financial data, strategic plans, and market research. For the same reasons the Court has previously ordered that such information may be filed under seal (see Doc. 259), the motions will be granted. In Doc. 319, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment; exhibits 3, 4, and 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment; portions of BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and exhibits 1–6 thereto; and portions of BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. Tülim Erdem and exhibits 3, 6, and 7 thereto. BBK opposes CCA’s motion to seal with respect to portions of Craig Bobzin’s deposition, which appears as exhibit 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 320.) Upon review, the Court holds that the following two excerpts of Bobzin’s deposition are not confidential and that, accordingly, “compelling reasons” do not justify filing them under seal: 72:0–73:5 and 80:12–83:18. Accordingly, CCA’s motion to seal those excerpts will be denied. CCA’s motion will otherwise be granted. In Doc. 343, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. On Amir; portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec, including exhibit A; and portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Francis Burns, including exhibits A and C. BBK opposes CCA’s motion to seal with respect to its opposition to the Dr. Amir motion, its opposition to the Stec motion, and exhibit C to its opposition to the Burns motion. (Doc. 369.) CCA has withdrawn its requests to seal portions the Amir opposition, exhibit C to the Burns opposition, and portions of the Stec opposition. (Doc. 374.) Thus, it requests only that the Court seal portions of the Stec opposition and exhibit A to the Burns opposition. That narrower request is unopposed, and the Court finds good cause justifying limiting public access. Accordingly, CCA’s motion to seal will be granted in part and denied in part as moot. In Doc. 361, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn. The portions of the reply CCA moves to seal contain CCA’s past sales and other financial data. The motion is unopposed, and good cause justifies limiting public access to such sensitive information. (Doc. 259 at 7.) The motion will be granted. In Doc. 365, CCA requests that the Court seal portions of CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment and portions of exhibits 5, 8, and 18–24 to CCA’s opposition. BBK opposes CCA’s requests to seal exhibits B–C and F to exhibit 5 and exhibits 19, 20, and 30. (Doc. 376.) BBK’s arguments are unpersuasive, and compelling reasons support sealing the challenged exhibits, as they contain emails between CCA employees and third parties regarding CCA’s business plans and potential partnerships. CCA’s motion will therefore be granted. In Doc. 370, BBK moves to seal footnote 26 to CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment. The motion is unopposed and compelling reasons justify granting the motion. Footnote 26 contains sensitive financial information—sales ratios based on non-public sales figures—that must remain confidential to protect BBK’s competitive interests. The motion will be granted. In Doc. 381, CCA moves to seal a number of lines of BBK’s reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. BBK opposes CCA’s motion in part. It argues that compelling reasons do not justify sealing lines 2, 6, and 7 of page 16 of its reply. BBK is right. The redacted statements are too vague to provide the public with any meaningful information regarding CCA’s strategic plans. CCA’s motion will be denied with regard to lines 2, 6, and 7 of page 16 and granted with regard to lines 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Finally, in Do
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WO
BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., Defendants. I. Before the Court are numerous motions to seal various documents and exhibits (Docs. 294, 313, 319, 339, 343, 357, 361, 365, 370, 381, 402). The motions are fully briefed, and the Court rules as follows. II. The public has a right to inspect and copy public judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 567 (1978). Although the right is not absolute, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party requesting to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by either showing “compelling reasons” if the record is a dispositive pleading or “good cause” if the record is a non-dispositive pleading. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. Motions to seal a summary judgement motion or its exhibits must meet the compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 1181. In Doc. 294, BBK seeks to seal certain sensitive financial information and settlement strategies, including sales numbers and ratios for certain RAW products, taxes and duties paid by BBK, and settlement terms exchanged between BBK and CCA. The motion is unopposed by CCA. (Doc. 334.) Compelling reasons justify sealing this information. Sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing may be filed under seal despite the public’s general right to inspect and copy judicial records. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598–99; see also MD Helicopters Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. CV-17-02598-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 2184762, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2019). With respect to three of its pending motions to seal (Docs. 313, 339, 357), CCA filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Documents in Connection with a Partial Withdrawal of Motions to Seal (Doc. 362). In that motion, CCA informs the Court that, following conferral with BBK’s counsel, it has elected to withdraw certain portions of its motions to seal. CCA also requests leave to file new versions of the redacted documents previously filed on the public docket, in order to un-redact the portions CCA no longer requests be filed under seal. CCA’s motion is unopposed (Doc. 371) and will be granted. Thus, the Court will consider CCA’s motions to seal (Docs. 313, 339, 357) only as amended.1 In Doc. 313, CCA moves to seal portions of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir and exhibits 3–5 thereto, along with portions of its motion to exclude Francis Burns and exhibits 1–5 thereto. (Docs. 313, 362, 375.) In Doc. 339, CCA moves to seal portions of its opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Khurshid Kohja; portions of its opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and exhibits A–C thereto; and portions of its opposition to BBK’s motions to exclude Dr. Elisabeth Honka and Dr. Tülim Erdem and exhibits B and I thereto. (Docs. 339, 375) In Doc. 357, CCA moves to seal 1 In its reply (Doc. 375), CCA agreed to withdraw additional portions of its motions to seal. portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec; portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir; and portions of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Francis Burns. (Docs. 357, 375.) These motions to seal are unopposed (except as described above). Because the motions and exhibits are non- dispositive, CCA need only show “good cause” for limiting the public’s access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. CCA has done so. The information CCA seeks to file under seal involves the company’s past sales and financial data, strategic plans, and market research. For the same reasons the Court has previously ordered that such information may be filed under seal (see Doc. 259), the motions will be granted. In Doc. 319, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment; exhibits 3, 4, and 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment; portions of BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and exhibits 1–6 thereto; and portions of BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. Tülim Erdem and exhibits 3, 6, and 7 thereto. BBK opposes CCA’s motion to seal with respect to portions of Craig Bobzin’s deposition, which appears as exhibit 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 320.) Upon review, the Court holds that the following two excerpts of Bobzin’s deposition are not confidential and that, accordingly, “compelling reasons” do not justify filing them under seal: 72:0–73:5 and 80:12–83:18. Accordingly, CCA’s motion to seal those excerpts will be denied. CCA’s motion will otherwise be granted. In Doc. 343, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. On Amir; portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec, including exhibit A; and portions of BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Francis Burns, including exhibits A and C. BBK opposes CCA’s motion to seal with respect to its opposition to the Dr. Amir motion, its opposition to the Stec motion, and exhibit C to its opposition to the Burns motion. (Doc. 369.) CCA has withdrawn its requests to seal portions the Amir opposition, exhibit C to the Burns opposition, and portions of the Stec opposition. (Doc. 374.) Thus, it requests only that the Court seal portions of the Stec opposition and exhibit A to the Burns opposition. That narrower request is unopposed, and the Court finds good cause justifying limiting public access. Accordingly, CCA’s motion to seal will be granted in part and denied in part as moot. In Doc. 361, CCA moves to seal portions of BBK’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn. The portions of the reply CCA moves to seal contain CCA’s past sales and other financial data. The motion is unopposed, and good cause justifies limiting public access to such sensitive information. (Doc. 259 at 7.) The motion will be granted. In Doc. 365, CCA requests that the Court seal portions of CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment and portions of exhibits 5, 8, and 18–24 to CCA’s opposition. BBK opposes CCA’s requests to seal exhibits B–C and F to exhibit 5 and exhibits 19, 20, and 30. (Doc. 376.) BBK’s arguments are unpersuasive, and compelling reasons support sealing the challenged exhibits, as they contain emails between CCA employees and third parties regarding CCA’s business plans and potential partnerships. CCA’s motion will therefore be granted. In Doc. 370, BBK moves to seal footnote 26 to CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment. The motion is unopposed and compelling reasons justify granting the motion. Footnote 26 contains sensitive financial information—sales ratios based on non-public sales figures—that must remain confidential to protect BBK’s competitive interests. The motion will be granted. In Doc. 381, CCA moves to seal a number of lines of BBK’s reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. BBK opposes CCA’s motion in part. It argues that compelling reasons do not justify sealing lines 2, 6, and 7 of page 16 of its reply. BBK is right. The redacted statements are too vague to provide the public with any meaningful information regarding CCA’s strategic plans. CCA’s motion will be denied with regard to lines 2, 6, and 7 of page 16 and granted with regard to lines 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Finally, in Doc. 402, CCA moves to seal an exhibit to its supplemental filing in support of its motion for summary judgment (Doc. 401). The exhibit includes confidential information about CCA’s strategy and timeline for releasing new products. Compelling reasons justify limiting the public’s access to such information. The motion will therefore be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting BBK’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 294). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of BBK’s motion for summary judgment and exhibits 2, 9, 12, and 13 (lodged at Doc. 296) under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part as moot CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 313). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted versions of: CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. On Amir and the exhibits thereto (lodged at Doc. 310); and CCA’s motion to exclude Francis Burns and the exhibits thereto (lodged at Doc. 312), under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Doc. 309 and all attached exhibits from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing CCA to file amended versions of its motion to exclude Dr. Amir and all attached exhibits, that reflect the proper redactions in light of this Order and CCA’s prior filings (Docs. 362, 375). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 319). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted versions of: exhibits 3, 4, and 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment (lodged at Doc. 297); BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and exhibits 1–6 thereto (lodged at Doc. 300); and BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. Tülim Erdem and exhibits 3, 6, and 7 thereto (lodged at Doc. 303), under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking exhibit 21 to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 293-30) from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing BBK to file, by Monday, July 18, 2022, an amended version of Steven Bobzin’s deposition transcript (exhibit 21 to its motion for partial summary judgment), that reflects the proper redactions in light of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part as moot CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 339). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted versions of: CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Khurshid Kohja (lodged at Doc. 342); CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Dr. David Blackburn and attached exhibits A, B, and C (lodged at Doc. 340); and CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motions to exclude Dr. Elisabeth Honka and Dr. Tülim Erdem and attached exhibits B and I (lodged at Doc. 341), under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking from the record: CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motions to exclude Dr. Elisabeth Honka and Dr. Erdem and all attached exhibits (Doc. 337); and CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion to exclude Khurshid Kohja and all attached exhibits (Doc. 338). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing CCA to publicly file, by Monday, July 18, 2022, amended versions of these documents, along with all attached exhibits, that reflect the proper redactions in light of this Order and CCA’s prior filings (Docs. 362, 375). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part as moot CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 343.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted versions of: BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. On Amir (lodged at Doc. 330); BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec and attached exhibit A (lodged at Doc. 327); and BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Francis Burns and attached exhibits A and C (lodged at Doc. 324), under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking from the record: BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Amir and all attached exhibits (Doc. 328); BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Burns and all attached exhibits (Doc. 322); and BBK’s opposition to CCA’s motion to exclude Dr. Stec and all attached exhibits (Doc. 325). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing BBK to publicly file, by Monday, July 18, 2022, amended versions of these documents, along with all attached exhibits, that reflect the proper redactions in light of this Order and CCA’s voluntary withdrawals (Doc. 374). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part as moot CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 357). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted versions of: CCA’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Jeffrey Stec (lodged at Doc. 360); CCA’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir (lodged at Doc. 359); and CCA’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Francis Burns (lodged at Doc. 358), under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking CCA’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir (Doc. 354) from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing CCA to publicly file, by Monday, July 18, 2022, an amended version of its reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. On Amir, that reflects the proper redactions in light of this Order and CCA’s prior filings (Doc. 362). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 361). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of BBK’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Blackburn (lodged at Doc. 346) under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting CCA’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Documents in Connection with a Partial Withdrawal of its Motions to Seal (Doc. 362). The Clerk of Court is directed not to file, however, the documents attached to CCA’s motion (lodged at Doc. 363). CCA is instead directed to file amended documents as set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 365). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of CCA’s opposition to BBK’s motion for partial summary judgment and the attached exhibits (lodged at Doc. 366) under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting BBK’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 370). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 381). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of BBK’s reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment (lodged at Doc. 378) under seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking BBK’s reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 377) from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing BBK to publicly file, by Monday, July 18, 2022, an amended version of its reply in support of its motion for partial summary judgment, that reflects the proper redactions in light of this Order. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED granting CCA’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 402). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of exhibit 128 to CCA’s □□ motion for partial summary judgment (lodged at Doc. 403) under seal. Dated this 13th day of July, 2022. WM clacl T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge
-8-