E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Strategic Materials, Inc.

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 E. &. J. GALLO WINERY and GALLO CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01709-EPG 10 GLASS COMPANY ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 11 Plaintiffs, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO SEAL 12 v. 13

14 STRATEGIC MATERIALS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 In connection with their motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, and the various 19 oppositions and replies thereto, Plaintiffs E. & J. Gallo Winery and Gallo Glass Company 20 (“Gallo”) and Defendant Strategic Materials, Inc. (“SMI”) each filed notices to seal their filings. 21 (ECF Nos. 98, 100, 105, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126). At various times, they also filed memoranda in 22 support of the other party’s sealing motions. (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 132, 133). 23 The underlying case has settled, (ECF No. 234),1 but the Court must still consider the 24 sealing motions. For the reasons below, the Court grants in part, and denies without prejudice in 25 part the sealing motions as further detailed below. 26 \\\ 27 1 For administrative purposes, the Court will mark the case as closed when the sealing motions have been finalized. If 28 the parties do not wish to seal any documents, they should so inform the Court. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 2 The Ninth Circuit has set forth substantial case law concerning sealing dispositive 3 motions. Local Rule 141 provides additional standards for this district. 4 The parties appear to agree that the sealing requests are governed by the compelling- 5 reason test for dispositive motions.

6 Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds a 7 compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. The court must then conscientiously balance 8 the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. What constitutes a “compelling reason” is best left to the 9 sound discretion of the trial court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, to circulate libelous 10 statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's 11 competitive standing. 12 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016) (alterations, 13 internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). 14 Parties must also be specific when identifying the information that they seek to keep 15 sealed. As the Ninth Circuit has explained when denying a request by the United States to seal 16 documents:

17 Although the United States identifies the redactions it seeks by page number and line number, it does not provide similarly specific compelling reasons to justify 18 these redactions. Instead, the United States purports to justify each redaction by listing one of four general categories of privilege (privacy, law enforcement, 19 confidential source, and ongoing investigation). Simply mentioning a general 20 category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden. 21 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183–84 (9th Cir. 2006). 22 This district’s local rules add to the requirements. Under Local Rule 141(b), a party’s 23 “‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing” and, 24 among other things, “the total number of submitted pages shall be stated in the request.” 25 II. APPLICATION TO PARTIES’ REQUESTS 26 In balancing the tests, the Court notes at the outset that it did not make any decisions 27 based on the filings. Thus, the public’s interest at issue in the compelling reasons balancing test 28 1 carries less weight. To the extent the Court orders sealing, it has weighed the public’s interest 2 against the requesting party’s interest. 3 A. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 99 4 At ECF No. 98, Gallo requested to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 99. 5 At ECF No. 103, SMI filed a statement in support of such request. 6 1. ECF NO. 98 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 This request did not comply with the above standards. First, it did not list any statutory or 8 other authority for sealing. Second, it did not list the number of pages. Third, it did not provide 9 any specific reasons for why the Court should seal the documents. In fact, it provided no reasons 10 at all. 11 Thus, request number 98 is denied without prejudice. Gallo has fourteen days to file a new 12 sealing motion covering the documents it wishes to seal, if it chooses to do so. The Court will 13 keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a 14 renewed motion. 15 2. ECF NO. 103 IS GRANTED 16 SMI filed a statement in support of Gallo’s request. (ECF No. 103). Its statement meets 17 the relevant standards. 18 Thus, the following Exhibits to the Fieber Declaration (ECF No. 99-3) are sealed until the 19 Court orders otherwise, and only the parties, their respective litigation counsels and the Court 20 shall have access thereto: 21 Exhibit to Fieber ECF Compelling reasons2 22 Declaration Number 23 A 99-4 Contains SMI’s pricing, material volumes 24 D 99-5 Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers, 25 material volumes 26 E 99-5 Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers, 27

28 2 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI. 1 Exhibit to Fieber ECF Compelling reasons2 2 Declaration Number 3 material volumes 4 G 99-8 Contains SMI’s pricing 5 I 99-8 Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain 6 J 99-8 Contains SMI’s pricing. 7 K 99-8 Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers, 8 material volumes 9 L 99-8 Contains SMI’s pricing, material volumes 10 O 99-8 Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes 11 P 99-8 Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes, 12 pricing 13 R 99-8 Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes, 14 pricing 15 B. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 101 16 At ECF No. 100, SMI requests to seal or redact certain documents filed at ECF No. 101. 17 Gallo filed a statement in support at ECF No. 104. 18 1. ECF NO. 100 IS GRANTED 19 Here, SMI complied with the relevant local rule and legal standards. Therefore, the Court 20 grants SMI’s motion. 21

22 Exhibit to Holocek Compelling reasons3 23 Declaration (ECF No. 101-6) Exhibit 1 Pricing, volumes, supply 24 chains, customers, sensitive financial 25 information 26 Exhibit 7 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 27 sensitive financial

28 3 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the type of information which, if made public, would harm SMI. 1 Exhibit to Holocek Compelling reasons3 Declaration (ECF No. 101-6) 2 information 3 Exhibit 13 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 4 sensitive financial information 5 Exhibit 16 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 6 sensitive financial 7 information, business plans, strategies 8 Exhibit 21 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 9 sensitive financial 10 information Exhibit 22 Pricing, volumes, supply 11 chains, customers, sensitive financial 12 information Exhibit 26 Business plans, strategies 13 Exhibit 23 Pricing, volumes, supply 14 chains, customers, sensitive financial 15 information Exhibit 28 Pricing, volumes, supply 16 chains, customers, sensitive financial 17 information 18 Exhibit 30 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 19 sensitive financial information 20 Exhibit 33 Pricing, volumes, supply 21 chains, customers, sensitive financial 22 information Exhibit 35 Pricing, volumes, supply 23 chains, customers, sensitive financial 24 information 25 Exhibit 36 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 26 sensitive financial information 27 Exhibit 37 Pricing, volumes, supply 28 chains, customers, 1 Exhibit to Holocek Compelling reasons3 Declaration (ECF No. 101-6) 2 sensitive financial 3 information Exhibit 38 Pricing, volumes, supply 4 chains, customers, sensitive financial 5 information Exhibit 39 Pricing, volumes, supply 6 chains, customers, 7 sensitive financial information 8 Exhibit 40 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 9 sensitive financial 10 information Exhibit 41 Pricing, volumes, supply 11 chains, customers, sensitive financial 12 information Exhibit 45 Pricing, volumes, supply 13 chains, customers, 14 sensitive financial information 15 Exhibit 46 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 16 sensitive financial information 17 Exhibit 47 Pricing, volumes, supply 18 chains, customers, sensitive financial 19 information Exhibit 48 Pricing, volumes, supply 20 chains, customers, 21 sensitive financial information 22 Exhibit 49 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 23 sensitive financial information 24 Exhibit 50 Pricing, volumes, supply 25 chains, customers, sensitive financial 26 information Exhibit 51 Pricing, volumes, supply 27 chains, customers, sensitive financial 28 1 Exhibit to Holocek Compelling reasons3 Declaration (ECF No. 101-6) 2 information 3 Exhibit 52 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 4 sensitive financial information 5 Exhibit 53 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 6 sensitive financial 7 information Exhibit 54 Pricing, volumes, supply 8 chains, customers, sensitive financial 9 information 10 Exhibit 57 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 11 sensitive financial information 12 Exhibit 73 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 13 sensitive financial 14 information Exhibit 76 Pricing, volumes, supply 15 chains, customers, sensitive financial 16 information Exhibit 80 Pricing, volumes, supply 17 chains, customers, 18 sensitive financial information 19 Exhibit 82 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 20 sensitive financial 21 information Exhibit 85 Pricing, volumes, supply 22 chains, customers, sensitive financial 23 information Exhibit 92 Pricing, volumes, supply 24 chains, customers, 25 sensitive financial information 26 Exhibit 93 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 27 sensitive financial information 28 1 Exhibit to Holocek Compelling reasons3 Declaration (ECF No. 101-6) 2 Exhibit 94 Pricing, volumes, supply 3 chains, customers, sensitive financial 4 information Exhibit 95 Pricing, volumes, supply 5 chains, customers, sensitive financial 6 information 7 Exhibit 96 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 8 sensitive financial information 9 Exhibit 99 Pricing, volumes, supply 10 chains, customers, sensitive financial 11 information Exhibit 100 Pricing, volumes, supply 12 chains, customers, sensitive financial 13 information 14 Exhibit 101 Pricing, volumes, supply chains, customers, 15 sensitive financial information 16 In addition, SMI’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for 17 summary judgment and separate statement of undisputed facts in supported of its motion for 18 summary judgment contain redactable information because they refer to the above. Therefore, the 19 Court permanently redacts such information. 20 2. ECF NO. 104 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 21 Gallo’s Statement in Support of ECF No. 101-6 (ECF No. 104) does not meet the 22 standards for sealing described above. Therefore, the Court denies it without prejudice. To the 23 extent Gallo wishes to seal documents that are not already sealed by this order, Gallo may re-file 24 its request within fourteen days of the date of this order, if it chooses to do so. The Court will 25 keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a 26 renewed motion. 27 28 1 C. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 106 2 At ECF No. 105, Gallo sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection 3 with its Daubert motion at ECF No. 106. SMI filed a statement in support at ECF No. 118. 4 1. ECF NO. 105 IS GRANTED 5 Exhibits A, C, D and E to the Declaration of Joseph M. Alioto (ECF No. 106-2) each 6 contain information concerning Gallo’s operations, suppliers and redacted terms of its supply 7 agreement with SMI. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Gallo’s request to seal such information. 8 2. ECF NO. 118 IS DENIED AS MOOT 9 SMI’s statement in support of ECF No. 105 covers documents that the Court has already 10 decided to seal. Therefore, it is DENIED AS MOOT. 11 D. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 114 12 At ECF No. 113, Gallo requested to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection 13 to its opposition to SMI’s motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 114. SMI did not file a 14 statement in support. 15 1. ECF NO. 113 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 This request was insufficiently specific and did not contain the total number of pages 17 Gallo wants sealed. Therefore, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The exhibits Gallo 18 requests to have sealed will remain sealed at this time. Filings at ECF No. 114 and the exhibits 19 thereto will remain sealed or redacted for fourteen days to give Gallo an opportunity to refile its 20 request, if it chooses to do so. The Court will keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal 21 for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a renewed motion. 22 E. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 117 23 At ECF No. 116, SMI sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection 24 with its opposition to Gallo’s motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 117. Gallo filed a 25 statement in support at ECF No. 119. 26 1. ECF NO. 116 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 27 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 28 This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law to the extent SMI seeks to 1 seal documents it considers confidential to SMI. However, it makes no argument for why the 2 Court should seal documents that only Gallo has found confidential. Therefore, the Court seals 3 the following exhibits to the Holecek declaration (ECF No. 117-3):

4 Exhibit to Holecek Compelling reasons4 5 Declaration (ECF No. 117-3) 6 1 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial information, business plans, strategies, business relationships 7 4 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial information, business plans, strategies 8 6 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 9 information, business relationships 12 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 10 information, business relationships 13 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 11 information 12 14 Business plans, strategies 16 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 13 information 17 Business plans, strategies 14 18 Business relationships 15 21 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial information 16 22 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial information, business relationships 17 31 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial information 18 34 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 19 information, business relationships 35 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 20 information, business plans, strategies, business relationships 37 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 21 information, business plans, strategies, business relationships 22 38 Business relationships 39 Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial 23 information 24 The following documents, which reference the above cited exhibits, are permanently 25 redacted: 26 • Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authority in Support of Defendant’s 27 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117-1); and,

28 4 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the type of information which, if made public, would harm SMI. 1 • Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts (ECF No. 2 117-2). 3 The Court otherwise denies SMI’s motion without prejudice. If SMI chooses to, it may 4 refile a motion to seal the exhibits it noted that only Gallo had marked as highly confidential, 5 which are discussed immediately below. 6 2. ECF No. 119 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 7 Gallo’s statement in support of ECF No. 116 does not comply with the legal standards. 8 Therefore, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The exhibits Gallo requests to have sealed 9 will remain sealed at this time. The following exhibits to ECF No. 117-3 will remained sealed for 10 fourteen days to give Gallo an opportunity to refile its request: 11 • Exhibit 2 12 • Exhibit 3 13 • Exhibit 8 14 • Exhibit 10 15 • Exhibit 15 16 • Exhibit 20 17 • Exhibit 23 18 • Exhibit 24 19 • Exhibit 25 20 • Exhibit 27 21 • Exhibit 28 22 • Exhibit 29 23 • Exhibit 33 24 F. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 121 25 At ECF No. 120, Gallo sought to seal certain documents it filed at ECF No. 121. SMI did 26 not file a statement in support. 27 \\\ 28 1 1. ECF NO. 120 IS GRANTED 2 This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law. Therefore, the Court 3 seals the Exhibit U to the Reply Declaration of Julie L. Fieber (ECF No. 121-4) because it 4 contains confidential information regarding Gallo’s plant operations, the disclosure of which 5 would harm Gallo’s competitive standing. 6 G. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 124 7 At ECF No. 123, SMI requests to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 124. 8 Gallo did not file a statement in support. 9 1. ECF NO. 123 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 This request is insufficiently specific. It merely states that the documents it wishes to have 11 redacted “contain proprietary and commercially sensitive aspects of both SMI’s and Gallo’s 12 business and mutual business relationship, including but not limited to pricing, clients, supply 13 chains, internal processes, profits, and the terms of the parties’ Supply Agreement.” (ECF No. 14 123, at 2). It also does not contain the total number of pages it seeks to have sealed or redacted. 15 The filings SMI requests to have sealed (ECF Nos. 124, 124-2) will remain redacted at this time. 16 SMI has fourteen days to refile its request, if it chooses to do so. The Court will keep the 17 documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a renewed 18 motion. 19 H. FILINGS AT ECF NOS. 127-129 20 At ECF No. 126, Gallo sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF Nos. 21 127-129. SMI filed a statement in support at ECF No. 132. 22 1. ECF NO. 126 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 23 This request is insufficiently specific because it merely states certain documents have 24 confidential information “as discussed above,” but without detailing what type confidential 25 information is at issue or how its release will harm Gallo. The filings Gallo requests to have 26 sealed or redacted will remain sealed or redacted at this time. Gallo has fourteen days to refile its 27 request. 28 \\\ 1 2. ECF NO. 132 IS GRANTED 2 This statement in support of ECF No. 126 complies with the local rules and relevant case 3 law. Therefore, the following shall remain sealed: 4 Declaration and Exhibit Compelling reasons5 5 ECF Number 6 Fieber, ECF No. E Business relationship and certain details about Supply 127-1 Agreement 7 Fieber, ECF No. J Business relationship and certain details about Supply 127-1 Agreement 8 Fieber, ECF No. C Business relationship between the parties 128-1 9 Fieber, ECF No. D Business relationship between the parties 10 128-1 Alioto, ECF No. A Information regarding SMI’s revenue, profit margins, business 11 129-1 plans, strategies, supply chains, operational capabilities, and customers 12 In addition, Gallo’s briefs in opposition to SMI’s motions to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts 13 Stuart Harden and Mark Murray refer to the exhibits above. For the same reason, SMI’s request 14 to permanently redact Gallo’s briefs at ECF Nos. 127 and 128 is granted. 15 I. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 131 16 At ECF No. 130, SMI sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 131. 17 Gallo filed a statement in support at ECF No. 133. 18 1. ECF NO. 130 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 19 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 20 This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law to the extent SMI seeks to 21 seal documents it considers confidential itself. Therefore, the Court seals the following exhibits to 22 the Holecek declaration (ECF No. 131-2): 23 Exhibit to ECF Compelling reasons6 24 No. 131-2 2 Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, 25 customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the parties 26 5 Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, 27 5 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI. 28 6 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI. 1 Exhibit to ECF Compelling reasons6 No. 131-2 2 customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the 3 parties 7 Information concerning the business relationship between the parties 4 8 Information concerning the business relationship between the parties 9 Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, 5 customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the parties 6 However, SMI does not argue that its brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude 7 Experts should be redacted. Therefore, the Court will grant SMI fourteen days to file a request to 8 redact ECF No. 131, should it wish to do so. Until such time, ECF No. 131 will remain redacted. 9 2. ECF NO. 133 IS GRANTED 10 This statement in support of ECF No. 130 complies with the local rules and relevant case 11 law. Therefore, the following shall remain sealed: 12

13 Exhibit to ECF No. Compelling reasons7 14 131-2 10 Information regarding Gallo’s costs for specific batch components 15 11 Confidential details about Gallo’s operations, including percentages of components used in its recipes 16 15 Information regarding Gallo’s costs for specific batch components 17 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 The Court grants the following sealing requests: ECF Nos. 100, 103, 105, 120, 132, 133 19 The Court grants in part the following sealing requests: ECF Nos. 116, 130 20 The Court denies the following sealing requests without prejudice: ECF Nos. 98, 104, 21 113, 119, 123, 126. 22 The Court denies the sealing request at ECF No. 118 as moot. 23 To the extent any sealing motion was denied, the parties have fourteen days from the date 24 of this order to refile their requests. Until such time, the Court will keep the filings sealed or 25 redacted. 26 Given the vast number of documents at issue here, the Court requests that additional 27

28 7 Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause Gallo. 4:41 VV VEER YS MMU BO OPI Te AY tw I

1 | sealing requests contain tables that clearly indicate: (1) the document at issue, (2) the 2 | corresponding ECF number, and (3) the specific compelling reasons for the request. Along with 3 | Word versions of proposed orders, the Court requests the parties send Word versions of the 4 | sealing requests they may file. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7) Dated: _ June 3, 2020 [Je hey 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28