Cittadino v. BrandSafway Services, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SULLIVAN CITTADINO, an No. 2:23-cv-00322 WBS JDP individual, 13 Plaintiff, v. 15 BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES, LLC; 16 BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC; 17 SAFWAY GROUP HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Defendants request to file three employment-related 22 agreements between the parties -- (1) an Equity and Related 23 Arrangements agreement, (2) a Management Incentive Compensation 24 Plan, and (3) a Delegation of Authority agreement -- with 25 redactions of certain information. (See Docket No. 49.) 26 A party seeking to seal a judicial record must 27 “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 28 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 1 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest 2 in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & 3 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). In 4 ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 5 interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 6 secret. Id. at 1179. 7 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “business 8 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” 9 presents a compelling reason to seal documents. Ctr. for Auto 10 Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 11 2016). Defendants have demonstrated that the limited redactions 12 contain information that, if revealed, could harm their 13 competitive standing. This information includes certain terms 14 associated with employee stock sales and vesting, see In re High- 15 Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11–cv–02509 LHK, 2013 WL 16 163779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013); Pyro Spectaculars North, 17 Inc. v. Souza, No. 2:12–cv–00299 GGH (E.D. Cal. March 8, 2012), 18 and information pertaining to internal financial operations 19 including the settlement of litigation, see San Diego Comic 20 Convention v. Dan Farr Prods., No. 14-cv-1865 AJB JMA, 2017 WL 21 3732081, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017). Further, granting the 22 request will not impede the public’s ability to understand the 23 basis for the court’s decision, as the redacted information is 24 not germane to the pending motion. 25 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ request 26 (Docket No. 49) to redact Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to Exhibit A of 27 the DuCharme Declaration be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 28 The redacted exhibits (Docket No. 49 at 76-158) are hereby deemed en nnn ee ee NR IID NE EIR OS IEE EIS OIE OIE IE ED EO

1 | FILED. oo | Dated: November 12, 2024 ah thew ah WILLIAM B. SHUBB 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28