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

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

Opinion

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, et al., CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01709-EPG 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. STRATEGIC MATERIALS, INC., Defendant.

In connection with their motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, and the various oppositions and replies thereto, Plaintiffs E. & J. Gallo Winery and Gallo Glass Company (“Gallo”) and Defendant Strategic Materials, Inc. (“SMI”) each filed notices to seal their filings. (ECF Nos. 98, 100, 105, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126). At various times, they also filed memoranda in support of the other party’s sealing motions. (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 132, 133). After the Court granted in part and denied in part without prejudice the motions, (ECF No. 135), the parties filed additional briefing concerning their sealing requests, (ECF Nos. 137, 138). Upon review of the materials, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, and DENIES, IN PART, the sealing requests. // The Ninth Circuit has set forth substantial case law concerning sealing dispositive motions. Local Rule 141 provides additional standards for this district. The parties appear to agree that the sealing requests are governed by the compelling- reason test for dispositive motions.

Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds a compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. The court must then conscientiously balance 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 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 statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016) (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). Parties must also be specific when identifying the information that they seek to 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 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 purports to justify each redaction by listing one of four general categories of privilege (privacy, law enforcement, confidential source, and ongoing investigation). Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183–84 (9th Cir. 2006). II. APPLICATION TO PARTIES’ REQUESTS In balancing the tests, the Court notes at the outset that it did not make any rulings based on the filings. Thus, the public’s interest at issue in the compelling reasons balancing test carries less weight. To the extent the Court orders sealing, it has weighed the public’s interest against the requesting party’s interest. FILINGS AT ECF NO. 99 The Court GRANTS Gallo’s request to seal the following documents at ECF No. 99 for the noted compelling reasons: Document ECF # Compelling Reason Declaration of Alex 99-2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Declaration contain data on Westmoreland in Gallo’s scrap sales. As explained in Paragraph 4 of the Support of Plaintiffs’ Declaration, this data on scrap sales is competitively Motion for Partial sensitive information, both with respect to the absolute Summary Judgement values and trends it reveals regarding year-to-year variation in Gallo operations. Gallo keeps this information confidential. Exhibit M (Majewski 99-8 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Dep. Tr.) sensitive data on Gallo operations and production numbers. Exhibit N (Mundello 99-8 This testimony contains confidential and competitively Dep. Tr.) sensitive data on Gallo operations and production numbers. Plaintiffs and Counter- 99 Portions of the Points and Authorities, as noted by Gallo, Defendants’ Notice of submitted in support of its motion refer to the underlying Motion and Motion for confidential materials. Partial Summary Judgement on Issue of: Defendant’s Claim for Damages Based on Section 19.0 of the Supply Agreement: Memorandum of Points and Authorities

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)