COLUMBIA INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04683-TSH
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY Re: Dkt. Nos. 140, 147, 157, 183 INC., Defendant. Plaintiffs Columbia Insurance Co. and MiTek Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. (“Simpson”). ECF No. 61 (First Amended Complaint). Simpson filed a counterclaim for patent invalidity against Plaintiffs. ECF No. 64. Pending before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal brought by Plaintiffs (ECF Nos. 140, 157) and two administrative motions to file under seal brought by Simpson (ECF Nos. 147, 183). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first Motion, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ second Motion, GRANTS Simpson’s first Motion, and GRANTS Simpson’s second Motion.1 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Here, the documents at issue in Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motions (ECF Nos. 140, 157) were filed by Plaintiffs in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141) and their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 157-2). Simpson’s second Administrative Motion was filed in connection with its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 183, 184. Motions for summary judgment, along with their attached documents, are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (“while discovery-related motions are often unrelated to the merits of a case, the same cannot be said for materials attached to a summary judgment motion because summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and serves as a substitute for trial”) (cleaned up); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 01, 2020) (“Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents.”). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Plaintiffs’ administrative motions and to Simpson’s second administrative motion. The documents at issue in Simpson’s first Administrative Motion (ECF No. 147) were filed by Simpson in connection with its Daubert Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 148). Where, as here, a Daubert motion concerns opinions on “invalidity of the patents at issue in the case . . . and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions,” the compelling reasons standard applies. VLSI Tech. see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1100 (treating Daubert motion as dispositive because it “pertain[ed] to central issues bearing on defendant's summary judgment motion,” and applying compelling reasons standard to the motion). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Simpson’s first administrative motion. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1. Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document because that document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating Party”), the Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. CIV. L.R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion's filing, the Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1), (f). That statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. Id. at 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id. A. ECF No. 140 On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s MSJ”). ECF Nos. 141, 140. Plaintiffs move to file portions of one document under seal on the basis that it was designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Simpson: Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. J, at 33:6–36:24, 44:20–45:8 (ECF No. 140-2). ECF No. 140. On May 12, 2025, Simpson responded to Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion requesting sealing of the portions of Exhibit J identified by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 146. In support of its request, Simpson submits a declaration from Joseph V. Mauch setting forth the bases for sealing the document. See Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Simpson’s Vice President, Sam Hensen—the document discusses Simpson’s confidential business information as it contains non-public information regarding Simpson’s intellectual property and confidential sales data regarding Simpson’s products. Id. at ¶¶ 4–6. The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Simpson’s requests are narrowly tailored to the confidential business document. The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business document. See Regis Metro Associates, Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-02309-DMR, 2022 WL 267443, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (granting motion to seal because “[a]ll of the documents contain sensitive business information or may be subject to confidentiality agreements”); In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (noting that under the compelling reasons standard, courts have upheld the sealing of “trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product specific financial information, customer information, internal reports, and other such materials that would harm a party’s competitive standing”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion and ORDERS that ECF No. 140-2 remain under seal. As the redacted version of Exhibit J has already been filed in the public record (ECF No. 140-3), no further action is required. B. ECF No. 157 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a combined Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed and an Administrative Motion to Seal, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COLUMBIA INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04683-TSH
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY Re: Dkt. Nos. 140, 147, 157, 183 INC., Defendant. Plaintiffs Columbia Insurance Co. and MiTek Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. (“Simpson”). ECF No. 61 (First Amended Complaint). Simpson filed a counterclaim for patent invalidity against Plaintiffs. ECF No. 64. Pending before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal brought by Plaintiffs (ECF Nos. 140, 157) and two administrative motions to file under seal brought by Simpson (ECF Nos. 147, 183). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first Motion, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ second Motion, GRANTS Simpson’s first Motion, and GRANTS Simpson’s second Motion.1 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Here, the documents at issue in Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motions (ECF Nos. 140, 157) were filed by Plaintiffs in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141) and their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 157-2). Simpson’s second Administrative Motion was filed in connection with its Reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 183, 184. Motions for summary judgment, along with their attached documents, are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (“while discovery-related motions are often unrelated to the merits of a case, the same cannot be said for materials attached to a summary judgment motion because summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and serves as a substitute for trial”) (cleaned up); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 01, 2020) (“Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents.”). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Plaintiffs’ administrative motions and to Simpson’s second administrative motion. The documents at issue in Simpson’s first Administrative Motion (ECF No. 147) were filed by Simpson in connection with its Daubert Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 148). Where, as here, a Daubert motion concerns opinions on “invalidity of the patents at issue in the case . . . and efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions,” the compelling reasons standard applies. VLSI Tech. see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1100 (treating Daubert motion as dispositive because it “pertain[ed] to central issues bearing on defendant's summary judgment motion,” and applying compelling reasons standard to the motion). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Simpson’s first administrative motion. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1. Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document because that document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating Party”), the Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed. CIV. L.R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion's filing, the Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1), (f). That statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. Id. at 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id. A. ECF No. 140 On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s MSJ”). ECF Nos. 141, 140. Plaintiffs move to file portions of one document under seal on the basis that it was designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Simpson: Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. J, at 33:6–36:24, 44:20–45:8 (ECF No. 140-2). ECF No. 140. On May 12, 2025, Simpson responded to Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion requesting sealing of the portions of Exhibit J identified by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 146. In support of its request, Simpson submits a declaration from Joseph V. Mauch setting forth the bases for sealing the document. See Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Simpson’s Vice President, Sam Hensen—the document discusses Simpson’s confidential business information as it contains non-public information regarding Simpson’s intellectual property and confidential sales data regarding Simpson’s products. Id. at ¶¶ 4–6. The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Simpson’s requests are narrowly tailored to the confidential business document. The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business document. See Regis Metro Associates, Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-02309-DMR, 2022 WL 267443, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (granting motion to seal because “[a]ll of the documents contain sensitive business information or may be subject to confidentiality agreements”); In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (noting that under the compelling reasons standard, courts have upheld the sealing of “trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product specific financial information, customer information, internal reports, and other such materials that would harm a party’s competitive standing”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion and ORDERS that ECF No. 140-2 remain under seal. As the redacted version of Exhibit J has already been filed in the public record (ECF No. 140-3), no further action is required. B. ECF No. 157 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a combined Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed and an Administrative Motion to Seal, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Oppo.”). ECF Nos. 157-2, 157, 158 (continuation of Motion). 1. Documents Designated By Simpson Plaintiffs move to file 31 documents under seal on the basis that they were designated as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Simpson: • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 157-4) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 25 (ECF No. 157-6) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 27 (ECF No. 157-8) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 28 (ECF No. 157-9) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 29 (ECF No. 157-10) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 30 (ECF No. 157-11) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 31 (ECF No. 157-12) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 32 (ECF No. 157-13) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 33 (ECF No. 157-14) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 34 (ECF No. 157-15) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 35 (ECF No. 157-16) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 36 (ECF No. 157-17) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 37 (ECF No. 157-18) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 39 (ECF No. 157-20) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 40 (ECF No. 157-21) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 41 (ECF No. 157-22) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 42 (ECF No. 157-23) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 43 (ECF No. 157-24) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 45 (ECF No. 157-26) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 46 (ECF No. 157-27) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 50 (ECF No. 157-28) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 51 (ECF No. 156-48)2 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 52 (ECF No. 157-29) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 53 (ECF No. 157-30) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 54 (ECF No. 158-1) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 55 (ECF No. 158-2) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 56 (ECF No. 158-3) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 57 (ECF No. 158-4) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 67 (ECF No. 158-5) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 68 (ECF No. 158-6) ECF No. 157. On June 5, 2025, Simpson responded to Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion requesting sealing of nine documents: Pl.’s Oppo., Exs. 25, 26, 28, 42, 43, 45, 53, 54, 55. ECF No. 175. Simpson also requests that certain portions of one document be sealed: Pl.’s Oppo., Ex.16, at pages 32–35, 45, 57, 70–74, 146–154, 180–190. Id. In support of its request, Simpson submits a declaration from Lindsay van Keulen setting forth the bases for sealing each document. See Declaration of Lindsay van Keulen in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion (ECF No. 175). All of Simpson’s sealing requests relate to exhibits that discuss Simpson’s confidential business information, including Simpson’s product development plans and internal sales reports. ECF No. 175. Simpson argues that disclosure of the information in each document at issue would result in competitive harm to Simpson. Id. at ¶ 15. Exhibit 16 discloses excerpts from the deposition of Simpson’s Vice President, Sam Hensen—this document contains non-public information about Simpson’s intellectual property and sales strength of Simpson’s products. Id. at ¶ 4. Exhibit 25 is Dr. Serwin’s expert report that contains confidential sales data of Simpson and MiTek products. Id. at ¶ 5. Exhibits 26, 28, and 42 are internal Simpson emails that contain “confidential discussions regarding confidential sales data reflecting the relative strength of certain Simpson products.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–8. Exhibits 43 and 45 are an internal Simpson email and document that contain “confidential information regarding Simpson’s product development, including intellectual property relating to non-public ideas and strategy” for Simpson’s products. Id. at ¶¶ 9–10. Exhibits 53 and 54 are an internal Simpson email and meeting minutes that contain confidential product development information. Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. Exhibit 55 is an internal Simpson email that contains confidential product development information. Id. at ¶ 13. The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed. Simpson’s request to seal Dr. Serwin’s expert report (ECF No. 157-6) in its entirety is overbroad. See Allen v. Conagra Foods, motions to seal without prejudice and noting “requests to seal entire pages of deposition testimony and expert reports are overbroad”). Simpson does not explain why there are no suitable alternatives to sealing the entire expert report. Simpson’s request reaches far beyond sealable information, extending to recitations of the expert’s qualifications and to descriptions of documents in the public record, such as information contained in Plaintiffs’ publicly filed complaint. Although the van Keulen Declaration establishes that the expert report contains some sealable information, Simpson fails to establish that the expert report in its entirety is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law, as required under Local Rule 79-5(a). The Court finds Simpson’s other requests are narrowly tailored to the confidential business documents. The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business documents. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF Nos. 157-7, 157-9, 157-23, 157-24, 157-26, 157-30, 158-1, and 158-2. With respect to Exhibit 16, the Court ORDERS ECF No. 157-4 to remain sealed and ORDERS Simpson to file a redacted version of Exhibit 16 in the public record within four days with pages 32–35, 45, 57, 70–74, 146– 154, 180–190 redacted. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to seal ECF No. 157-6. Within four days, Simpson may propose narrowly tailored redactions to Serwin’s report. If Simpson fails to do so, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied with respect to ECF No. 157-6. In its response to Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion, Simpson states that it does not request sealing of: Pl.’s Oppo., Exs. 27, 29–37, 39–41, 46, 50–52, 56–57, 67, 68. ECF No. 175. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF Nos. 157- 8, 157-10–157-18, 157-20–157-22, 157-27, 157-28, 157-29, and 158-3–158-6, and Plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file these Exhibits in the public record no sooner than three days and no later than seven days from the date of this order. 2. Documents Designated By Plaintiffs In this same Motion, Plaintiffs request that three documents in connection with its Opposition be filed under seal: • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 24 (ECF No. 157-5) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 38 (ECF No. 157-19) • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 44 (ECF No. 157-25) ECF No. 157. Plaintiffs also move to file certain portions of one document under seal: Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 1, at ¶¶ 340–42, 351, 353, 359, 361, 363, 367, 372, 376, 377, 380, 389, 390, 391–92, 403, 405, 407, 409–10 (ECF No. 158-7). Id. In support of their request, Plaintiffs submit a declaration from Julie Scheipeter setting forth the bases for sealing each document designated by Plaintiffs. See Declaration of Julie Scheipeter in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion (ECF No. 157-1). Plaintiffs filed redacted versions of their Opposition (ECF No. 156) and Controverting Statement of Facts (ECF No. 156-1) on the public docket because those documents identify information which is taken from exhibits filed under seal.3 Id. All of Plaintiffs’ sealing requests relate to briefs and exhibits that discuss confidential business information. ECF No. 157-1. Plaintiffs argue that disclosure of the information in each document at issue would result in competitive harm to Plaintiffs. Id. Exhibit 1 is Dr. Serrette’s Expert Report that contains “highly confidential information on sales information, product development, and marketing data not available to the public.” Id. at ¶ 35. Exhibit 24 relates to the deposition of MiTek’s corporate representative, Mike Nelson, and contains testimony that “describes confidential sales, profit, and other highly sensitive business information not available to the public.” Id. at ¶ 36. Exhibit 38 is a MiTek sales report that contains “highly confidential, proprietary business information, including sales data, not available to the public.” Id. at ¶ 37. Exhibit 44 is an email chain that contains “highly confidential, proprietary business and technical information, including product design, development, and sales, not available to the public.” Id. at
3 While Plaintiffs filed unredacted versions of these documents, the documents do not contain ¶ 38. The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Plaintiffs’ requests are narrowly tailored to the confidential business documents. The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business documents. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2. However, for Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Controverting Statement of Facts, Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 79-5 as they did not identify which portions of these documents sealing is sought. See CIV. L.R. 79-5(e)(2) (instructing that unredacted briefs “must highlight the portions for which sealing is sought”). Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs’ requests for sealing these documents are appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF Nos. 157-5, 157-19, 157-25 and 158-7. As the redacted version of Serrette’s report has already been filed in the public record (ECF No. 156-2), no further action is needed with respect to that Exhibit. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to seal ECF Nos. 157-2 and 157-3. For those items, Plaintiffs shall comply with Local Rule 79-5(e)(2) within four days. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, their motion will be denied with respect to ECF Nos. 157-2 and 157-3. A. ECF No. 147 On May 14, 2025, Simpson filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its Daubert Motion to Exclude. ECF Nos. 147, 148. Simpson moves to file one document under seal on the basis that it was designated as “Confidential -Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Plaintiffs or refers to such designated material: Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch in Support of Simpson’s Daubert Motion to Exclude, Ex. D (Expert Report of Dr. Reynaud Serrette On Validity) (ECF No. 147-2). ECF No. 147. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Plaintiffs had seven days to file a statement or declaration justifying the sealing. Plaintiffs did not do so. Ordinarily, this would be cause to deny have made clear that they do want certain portions of Serrette’s report to be sealed, and the Court has granted that request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Simpson’s first Administrative Motion to seal ECF No. 147-2. As the redacted version of Serrette’s report is already in the public record, no further action is required. B. ECF No. 183 On June 26, 2025, Simpson filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 183, 184. Simpson moves to file one document under seal on the basis that it contains material from documents that Plaintiffs requested be sealed in their Administrative Motion at ECF No. 157 and because it contains material that Simpson has designated as confidential: Simpson’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts (“Reply Separate Statement”) (ECF No. 183-2).4 ECF No. 183. In support of its request, Simpson submits a declaration from Lindsay van Keulen setting forth the bases for sealing portions of the Reply Separate Statement that contain materials from documents designated by Simpson. See Declaration of Lindsay van Keulen in Support of Simpson’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 183-1). The declaration is persuasive. The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal portions of the Reply Separate Statement that contain material from documents designated by Plaintiffs and Simpson that the Court finds are appropriate for sealing, as discussed above. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Simpson’s second Administrative Motion. As the redacted version of the Reply Separate Statement is already in the public record (ECF No. 186), no further action is needed. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion is GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, Simpson’s first Administrative Motion is GRANTED, and Simpson’s second Administrative Motion is GRANTED. 2 3 Dated: July 10, 2025 4 f/LS \ - I. f THOMAS S. HIXSON 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
© 15 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28