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

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 16, 2020·No. 1:17-cv-01709·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, et al., CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01709-EPG 10 11 Plaintiffs, O DR END YER IN G GR , A INN PT AIN RG T, , I MN O P TA IR OT N, S A TN OD S EAL v. 12 STRATEGIC MATERIALS, INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 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 After the Court granted in part and denied in part without prejudice the motions, (ECF No. 24 135), the parties filed additional briefing concerning their sealing requests, (ECF Nos. 137, 138). 25 Upon review of the materials, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, and 26 DENIES, IN PART, the sealing requests. 27 // 28 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). Parties must also be specific when identifying the information that they seek to 14 keep sealed. As the Ninth Circuit has explained when denying a request by the United States to seal documents: Although the United States identifies the 15 redactions it seeks by page number and line number, it does not provide similarly specific compelling reasons to justify these redactions. Instead, the United States 16 purports to justify each redaction by listing one of four general categories of 17 privilege (privacy, law enforcement, confidential source, and ongoing investigation). Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any 18 further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden. 19 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183–84 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 II. APPLICATION TO PARTIES’ REQUESTS 21 In balancing the tests, the Court notes at the outset that it did not make any rulings based 22 on the filings. Thus, the public’s interest at issue in the compelling reasons balancing test carries 23 less weight. To the extent the Court orders sealing, it has weighed the public’s interest against the 24 requesting party’s interest. 25 FILINGS AT ECF NO. 99 26 The Court GRANTS Gallo’s request to seal the following documents at ECF No. 99 for 27 the noted compelling reasons: 28 1 Document ECF # Compelling Reason Declaration of Alex 99-2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Declaration contain data on 2 Westmoreland in Gallo’s scrap sales. As explained in Paragraph 4 of the 3 Support of Plaintiffs’ Declaration, this data on scrap sales is competitively Motion for Partial sensitive information, both with respect to the absolute 4 Summary Judgement values and trends it reveals regarding year-to-year variation in Gallo operations. Gallo keeps this information 5 confidential. Exhibit M (Majewski 99-8 This testimony contains confidential and competitively 6 Dep. Tr.) sensitive data on Gallo operations and production 7 numbers. Exhibit N (Mundello 99-8 This testimony contains confidential and competitively 8 Dep. Tr.) sensitive data on Gallo operations and production numbers. 9 Plaintiffs and Counter- 99 Portions of the Points and Authorities, as noted by Gallo, 10 Defendants’ Notice of submitted in support of its motion refer to the underlying Motion and Motion for confidential materials. 11 Partial Summary Judgement on Issue of: 12 Defendant’s Claim for Damages Based on 13 Section 19.0 of the 14 Supply Agreement: Memorandum of Points 15 and Authorities

16 Plaintiffs’ Separate 99-1 Portions of the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Statement of Undisputed Facts, as noted by Gallo, submitted in support of its motion 17 Facts in Support of refer to underlying confidential materials. 18 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement 19 FILINGS AT ECF NO. 101 20 Gallo’s request to seal the following documents at ECF No. 101 are granted for the 21 compelling reasons set forth below. 22 Document ECF # Compelling Reason 23 Exhibit 2 (Dep. Tr. Dan 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Armagost) sensitive data on Gallo operations, recipes, and production 24 numbers. 25 Exhibit 4 (Dep. Tr. Nigel 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Dart) sensitive data on Gallo operations, supplies, and vendors. 26 Exhibit 5 (Dep.Tr. Nigel 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Dart II) sensitive data on Gallo batch costs. 27 Exhibit 6 (Dep. Tr. John 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively 28 Gallo) sensitive data on Gallo operations. 1 Exhibit 8 (Dep. Tr. 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Lance Lemmings) sensitive data on Gallo operations, recipes, and production 2 numbers. 3 Exhibit 9 (Dep. Tr. Joe 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Majewski) sensitive data on Gallo tracking of complaints, recipes, 4 operations, and production numbers. Exhibit 10 (Dep. Tr. 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively 5 Mahesh Mistry) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and the Parties’ business relationship. 6 Exhibit 11 (Dep. Tr. 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively 7 Chad Mundello) sensitive data on Gallo operations, recipes, and production numbers. 8 Exhibit 14 (Dep. Tr. 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively James Rhodes) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and the Parties’ 9 confidential business relationships. 10 Exhibit 15 (Dep. Tr. 101-6 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Foung Thao) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and cullet 11 handling. Exhibit 17 (Daniel 101-6 This document contains confidential and competitively 12 Armagost DEX 6) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and cullet handling. 13 Exhibit 18 (Daniel 101-6 This document contains confidential and competitively 14 Armagost DEX 7) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and cullet handling. 15 Exhibit 19 (Daniel 101-6 This document contains confidential and competitively Armagost DEX 11) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and cullet 16 handling. 17 Exhibit 20 (Daniel 101-6 This document contains confidential and competitively Armgaost DEX 12) sensitive data on Gallo inspection methods and cullet 18 handling. Exhibit 24 (John Gallo 101-6 This document contains confidential and competitively 19 DEX 14) sensitive data on Gallo’s operations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Strategic Materials, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Strategic Materials, Inc. (E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Strategic Materials, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)