Eco Electrical Systems, LLC v. Reliaguard Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 ECO ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, LLC, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-00444 WHA

12 v.

13 RELIAGUARD INC., et al., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 Defendants.

16 This order addresses the motions to seal filed in connection with defendants’ motions for 17 summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 117–119, 121). 18 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. 19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 22 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” as they are here, 23 may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety 24 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 26 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 27 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 1 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 2 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 3 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 4 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 5 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 6 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 7 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information 8 because it “is not necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner 9 Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 10 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 11 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 12 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 13 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 14 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 15 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 16 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 17 2. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MAYDWELL & HARTZELL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 18 Here, plaintiff, with defendants’ support, filed conditionally under seal certain material 19 supporting its oppositions to defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 20 117–18). Defendants filed a declaration in support of sealing these documents (Dkt. No. 124). 21 The sealing requests that this order grants are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows: 22 Document Sought to Result Reasoning 23 be Sealed 24 Exhibit 2 (RG006549- DENIED. The email goes to the very heart of this 50) to the Declaration litigation, so there is a particularly strong 25 of Cheryl A. Noll in presumption of public visibility. Further, Support of Plaintiff’s the email discusses the relationship 26 Opposition to between M&H and Reliaguard at a high Defendant Maydwell level of abstraction. Defendants have 27 & Hartzell’s Motion failed to adequately explain how these Judgment (Dkt. No. of serious harm to Reliaguard’s competitive 1 120-4). standing that would justify sealing at this 2 stage. The request is also overbroad and not narrowly tailored. 3 The request is denied without prejudice. 4 Should counsel resubmit narrowly tailored redactions directed at the portions of the 5 email discussing individuals and utilities 6 not at issue in this case, the Court will entertain a subsequent motion. 7 Exhibit 3 (MH007-13) DENIED. Defendants did not file a declaration in 8 to the Declaration of support of the motion to seal this exhibit. Cheryl A. Noll in Civ. L.R. 79-5. 9 Support of Plaintiff’s 10 Opposition to Defendant Maydwell 11 & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 12 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 13 Exhibit 13 GRANTED The photographs attached to the text 14 (RG006998-7002) to as to the messages, depicting the prototype of a the Declaration of requested product not at issue in this case, contains 15 Cheryl A. Noll in material specific and detailed confidential Support of Plaintiff’s including information, the public disclosure of which 16 Opposition to photograph could cause Reliaguard competitive harm 17 Defendant Maydwell attachments. (Cart Decl. ¶ 3). Thus, the photograph & Hartzell’s Motion Otherwise attachments may be redacted. 18 for Summary DENIED. Judgment (Dkt. No. But, should this information become 19 120-4). relevant at trial or otherwise, the public interest may increase, perhaps leading to a 20 different decision on future sealing 21 requests.

22 The remainder of the exhibit does not implicate the material sought be sealed. 23 Only the photographs may be redacted.

25 Exhibit 16 GRANTED Defendants do not object to this exhibit (RG005220-21) to the as to the being publicly filed (Cart Decl. ¶ 4). The 26 Declaration of Cheryl requested contact information of PG&E employees A. Noll in Support of material. may be redacted. 27 Plaintiff’s Opposition Otherwise Maydwell & Hartzell’s 1 Motion for Summary 2 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 3 Exhibit 18 DENIED. The price of Reliaguard’s cutout cover in (RG001789-90) to the 2018 goes to the heart of this litigation, 4 Declaration of Cheryl which counsels against sealing. Defendants A. Noll in Support of have also failed to adequately explain why 5 Plaintiff’s Opposition pricing information from four years ago 6 to Defendant would result in the kind of serious Maydwell & Hartzell’s competitive harm that would justify 7 Motion for Summary sealing. Simply being marked as highly Judgment (Dkt. No. confidential is insufficient. 8 120-4). The request is also overbroad and not 9 narrowly tailored. Defendants have failed 10 to explain why the remainder of the exhibit, which appears to focus on Eco’s products, 11 implicates Reliaguard’s confidential information. 12 Exhibit 32 GRANTED. Contains specific and detailed confidential 13 (PGE002563-65) to information, the public disclosure of which 14 the Declaration of could cause Reliaguard competitive harm Cheryl A. Noll in (Cart Decl. ¶ 6). But, should this 15 Support of Plaintiff’s information become relevant at trial or Opposition to otherwise, the public interest may increase, 16 Defendant Maydwell perhaps leading to a different decision on 17 & Hartzell’s Motion future sealing requests. for Summary 18 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-5). 19 Exhibit 39 DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 18 (RG001789-90). (RG006384-86) to the 20 Declaration of Cheryl 21 A. Noll in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 22 to Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s 23 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 24 120-5). 25 Exhibit 40 DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 18 (RG001789-90). (RG006425-26) to the 26 Declaration of Cheryl The request is also overbroad. Should A. Noll in Support of counsel assert narrowly tailored redactions 27 Plaintiff’s Opposition targeting the pricing information of Maydwell & Hartzell’s products not at issue in this litigation, the 1 Motion for Summary Court will entertain a subsequent motion. 2 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-5). 3 Exhibit 58 DENIED. Defendants did not file a declaration in (MH001895-953) to support of the motion to seal this exhibit. 4 the Declaration of Civ. L.R. 79-5. Cheryl A. Noll in 5 Support of Plaintiff’s 6 Opposition to Defendant Maydwell 7 & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 8 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-5). 9 Exhibit 69 GRANTED. Contains specific and detailed confidential 10 (RG003502-04) to the information, the public disclosure of which Declaration of Cheryl could cause Reliaguard competitive harm 11 A. Noll in Support of (Cart Decl. ¶ 9). Moreover, this Plaintiff’s Opposition information appears to be only tangentially 12 to Defendant relevant to the issues in this case. Maydwell & Hartzell’s 13 Motion for Summary But, should this information become 14 Judgment (Dkt. No. relevant at trial or otherwise, the public 120-6). interest may increase, perhaps leading to a 15 different decision on future sealing requests. 16 Exhibit 70 GRANTED. See entry for Exhibit 69 (RG003502-04). 17 (RG003534-36) to the Declaration of Cheryl 18 A. Noll in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition 19 to Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s 20 Motion for Summary 21 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-6). 22 Exhibit 75 DENIED. The exhibit’s references to outside vendor (RG005394-400) to product approval processes go to the heart 23 the Declaration of of this litigation, which counsels against Cheryl A. Noll in sealing. The request is also overbroad and 24 Support of Plaintiff’s not narrowly tailored. 25 Opposition to Defendant Maydwell The request is denied without prejudice. 26 & Hartzell’s Motion Should counsel resubmit narrowly tailored for Summary redactions, the Court will entertain a 27 Judgment (Dkt. No. subsequent motion. Exhibit 77 DENIED. Defendants’ justification for sealing is 1 (RG005183-88) to the barebones and conclusory (Cart Decl. ¶ 12). 2 Declaration of Cheryl The request is denied without prejudice. A. Noll in Support of Should counsel resubmit narrowly tailored 3 Plaintiff’s Opposition redactions, the Court will entertain a to Defendant subsequent motion. 4 Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 5 Judgment (Dkt. No. 6 120-7). Exhibit 78 GRANTED. See entry for Exhibit 69 (RG003502-04). 7 (PGE002292-301) to the Declaration of 8 Cheryl A. Noll in Support of Plaintiff’s 9 Opposition to 10 Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion 11 for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 12 120-7). Exhibit 79 GRANTED. See entry for Exhibit 69 (RG003502-04). 13 (RG005169-74) to the 14 Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in Support of 15 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 16 Maydwell & Hartzell’s 17 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 18 120-7). Exhibit 80 GRANTED. See entry for Exhibit 69 (RG003502-04). 19 (RG005761-73) to the Declaration of Cheryl 20 A. Noll in Support of 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 22 Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 23 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-7). 24 Exhibit 81 DENIED. The portions of this exhibit illustrating the 25 (RG003588-92) to the relationship between PG&E employees and Declaration of Cheryl Reliaguard go to the heart of this litigation, 26 A. Noll in Support of which counsels against sealing. The Plaintiff’s Opposition request is also overbroad and not narrowly 27 to Defendant tailored. Motion for Summary The request is denied without prejudice. 1 Judgment (Dkt. No. Should counsel resubmit narrowly tailored 2 120-7). redactions, the Court will entertain a subsequent motion. 3 Pages 317-318, 327- GRANTED The identity of Reliaguard’s raw material 332, 334, 352, and as to the supplier is confidential information, the 4 Exhibits 369, 462, and requested public disclosure of which could cause 463 of Exhibit 92 material Reliaguard competitive harm (Cart Decl. ¶ 5 (Jacobsen Depo.) to involving 18). 6 the Declaration of identity of Cheryl A. Noll in raw material However, the request is overbroad and not 7 Support of Plaintiff’s supplier. narrowly tailored. Only the portions Opposition to Otherwise directly referencing the supplier’s name 8 Defendant Maydwell DENIED. may be sealed. & Hartzell’s Motion 9 for Summary This order forewarns defendants, however, 10 Judgment (Dkt. No. that should this information become 120-7). relevant at trial or otherwise, the public 11 interest may increase, perhaps leading to a different decision on future sealing 12 requests.

13 Page 11:5 of Plaintiff’s DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 18 (RG001789-90). 14 Opposition to Defendant Maydwell 15 & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 16 Judgment (Dkt. No. 17 120). Page 12:16–20 of GRANTED. See entry for Exhibit 32 (PGE002563-65). 18 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 19 Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 20 Judgment (Dkt. No. 21 120). Page 13:10–11 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 18 (RG001789-90). 22 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 23 Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary 24 Judgment (Dkt. No. 25 120). Page 13:14–16 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 18 (RG001789-90). 26 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 27 Maydwell & Hartzell’s Judgment (Dkt. No. 1 120). 2 Pages 18:6–7 of DENIED. Defendants have not provided a compelling Plaintiff’s Opposition reason that would justify sealing this vague 3 to Defendant and general statement. Civ. L.R. 79-5. Maydwell & Hartzell’s 4 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 5 120). 6 Page 18:18–19 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 2 (RG006549-50). Plaintiff’s Opposition 7 to Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s 8 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 9 120). 10 Pages 23:12 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 2 (RG006549-50). Plaintiff’s Opposition 11 to Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s 12 Motion for Summary 13 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120). 14 Pages 25:23 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 2 (RG006549-50). Plaintiff’s Opposition 15 to Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s 16 Motion for Summary 17 Judgment (Dkt. No. 120). 18 3. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RELIAGUARD AND 19 GREENJACKET’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 20 Here, plaintiff, with defendants’ support, filed conditionally under seal certain material 21 supporting its oppositions to defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 119, 22 121). Defendants filed declarations in support of sealing these documents (Dkt. Nos. 125). 23 The sealing requests that this order grants are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows: 24 Document Sought to Result Reasoning 25 be Sealed Exhibit 11 GRANTED The photographs attached to the text 26 (RG006965-97) to the as to the messages, depicting the prototype of a 27 Declaration of Cheryl requested product not at issue in this case, contains A. Noll in Support of material specific and detailed confidential to Defendants photograph could cause Reliaguard competitive harm 1 Reliaguard, Inc. and attachments. (Cart Decl. ¶ 2). Thus, the photograph 2 Greenjacket, Inc.’s Otherwise attachments may be redacted. But, should Motion for Summary DENIED. this information become relevant at trial or 3 Judgment (Dkt. No. otherwise, the public interest may increase, 122-4). perhaps leading to a different decision on 4 future sealing requests.

5 The remainder of the exhibit does not 6 implicate the material sought be sealed. Only the photographs may be redacted 7 (ibid.).

8 Exhibit 26 DENIED. This exhibit is relevant to the heart of this (RG000241-46) to the litigation, so there is a particularly strong 9 Declaration of Cheryl presumption of public visibility. Further, 10 A. Noll in Support of the email discusses the development Plaintiff’s Opposition timeline at a high level of abstraction. 11 to Defendants Defendants have failed to explain how these Reliaguard, Inc. and general statements would result in the kind 12 Greenjacket, Inc.’s of serious harm to Reliaguard’s competitive Motion for Summary standing that would justify sealing at this 13 Judgment (Dkt. No. stage. 14 122-5). The request is denied without prejudice. 15 Should counsel resubmit narrowly tailored redactions, the Court will entertain a 16 subsequent motion. 17 Exhibit 30 DENIED. See entry above for Exhibit 18 (RG001789- 18 (RG006062-65) to the 90) to the Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in Declaration of Cheryl Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 19 A. Noll in Support of Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion Plaintiff’s Opposition for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 20 to Defendants 21 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 22 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 23 122-5). Exhibit 33 GRANTED See entry for Exhibit 11 (RG006965-97). 24 (RG006998-7002) to as to the 25 the Declaration of requested Cheryl A. Noll in material 26 Support of Plaintiff’s including Opposition to photograph 27 Defendants attachments. Greenjacket, Inc.’s Otherwise 1 Motion for Summary DENIED. 2 Judgment (Dkt. No. 122-5). 3 Exhibit 97 GRANTED Defendants do not object to this exhibit 4 (RG005220-21) to the as to the being publicly filed (Cart Decl. ¶ 6). The Declaration of Cheryl requested contact information of PG&E employees 5 A. Noll in Support of material. may be redacted. 6 Plaintiff’s Opposition Otherwise to Defendants DENIED. 7 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 8 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 9 122-7). 10 Exhibit 102 DENIED. See entry above for Exhibit 2 (RG006549- 11 (RG006549-50) to the 50) to the Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in Declaration of Cheryl Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 12 A. Noll in Support of Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion Plaintiff’s Opposition for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 13 to Defendants 14 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 15 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 16 122-8). 17 Exhibit 111 (Jacobsen DENIED. Defendants do not object to filing this Depo.) to the exhibit publicly (Cart Decl. ¶ 8). 18 Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in Support of 19 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants 20 Reliaguard, Inc. and 21 Greenjacket, Inc.’s Motion for Summary 22 Judgment (Dkt. No. 122-8). 23 Exhibit 112 (Jacobsen GRANTED See entry above for Exhibit 92 to the Depo.) to the as to the Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in Support of 24 Declaration of Cheryl requested Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 25 A. Noll in Support of material Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion for Summary Plaintiff’s Opposition involving Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 26 to Defendants identity of Reliaguard, Inc. and raw material 27 Greenjacket, Inc.’s supplier. Judgment (Dkt. No. Otherwise 1 122-8). DENIED. 2 Pages 11:15 of DENIED. Defendants did not file a supporting Plaintiff’s Opposition declaration. Civ. L.R. 79-5. The request is 3 to Defendant denied. Should counsel assert narrowly Reliaguard, Inc. and tailored redactions, the Court will entertain a 4 Greenjacket, Inc.’s subsequent motion. Motion for Summary 5 Judgment (Dkt. No. 6 122). Pages 11:24–12.2: of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 26 (RG000241-46). 7 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant 8 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 9 Motion for Summary 10 Judgment (Dkt. No. 122). 11 Pages 12:4–5 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 26 (RG000241-46). Plaintiff’s Opposition 12 to Defendant 13 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 14 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 15 122). Pages 12:20–21 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 30 (RG006062-65). 16 Plaintiff’s Opposition 17 to Defendant Reliaguard, Inc. and 18 Greenjacket, Inc.’s Motion for Summary 19 Judgment (Dkt. No. 122). 20 Pages 18:24–25 of GRANTED See entry for Exhibit 112. 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition with respect to Defendant to the 22 Reliaguard, Inc. and requested Greenjacket, Inc.’s material. 23 Motion for Summary Otherwise, Judgment (Dkt. No. DENIED. 24 122). 25 Page 19 n.18 of DENIED. See entry for Exhibit 112. Plaintiff’s Opposition 26 to Defendant Reliaguard, Inc. and 27 Greenjacket, Inc.’s Judgment (Dkt. No. 1 122). 2 Page 21:18 of DENIED. See entry above for Exhibit 2 (RG006549- Plaintiff’s Opposition 50) to the Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in 3 to Defendant Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Reliaguard, Inc. and Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion 4 Greenjacket, Inc.’s for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). Motion for Summary 5 Judgment (Dkt. No. 6 122). Pages 21:20–22:7 of DENIED. See entry above for Exhibit 2 (RG006549- 7 Plaintiff’s Opposition 50) to the Declaration of Cheryl A. Noll in to Defendant Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 8 Reliaguard, Inc. and Defendant Maydwell & Hartzell’s Motion Greenjacket, Inc.’s for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 120-4). 9 Motion for Summary 10 Judgment (Dkt. No. 122). 11 Page 28:6 of Plaintiff’s DENIED. The proposed redactions do not implicate Opposition to defendants’ justification for sealing the cited 12 Defendant Reliaguard, exhibit. Further, this information is relevant 13 Inc. and Greenjacket, to the merits, which counsels against Inc.’s Motion for sealing. 14 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 122). 15 Page 28:11–12 of DENIED. See entry re proposed redaction on page Plaintiff’s Opposition 28:6. 16 to Defendant 17 Reliaguard, Inc. and Greenjacket, Inc.’s 18 Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 19 122). 20 21 4. CONCLUSION. 22 Within TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS of the date of this order, the parties must file documents in 23 full compliance with this order. To repeat, should any sealed information become relevant at 24 trial or otherwise, the public interest may increase, perhaps leading to a different decision on 25 future sealing requests. 26 27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated: June 22, 2022. 4 5 fom { LIAM ALSUP 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 e 12

13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28