Flextronics International USA, Inc. v. Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 21, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-00078
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, 8 INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-00078-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 10 v. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 MURATA MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 68 12 Defendants. 13 This order addresses Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file portions of its second 14 amended complaint under seal. Dkt. 68. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES 15 this motion without prejudice. The Court provides instruction to the parties on how they should 16 prepare motions to seal going forward. Plaintiff may re-file this motion to seal; however, 17 Defendant must submit adequate documentation showing a compelling reason justifying sealing. 18 Generalized allegations of confidentiality are insufficient. 19 Courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and 20 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf 21 Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 22 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong 23 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 24 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 25 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). The right to access, however, is not absolute. Whitewater W. 26 Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). A court may grant a party’s 27 Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD 1 motion to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of 2 action,” if the moving party presents “compelling reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that 3 outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing 4 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To make this 5 showing, the moving party must provide “specific factual findings that outweigh the general 6 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 7 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have 8 upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports and other such 9 materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 10 App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 11 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. 12 Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 13 However, courts should exercise caution not to allow these exceptions to swallow the 14 strong presumption in favor of disclosure. “The mere fact that the production of records may lead 15 to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without 16 more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “Broad allegations of 17 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling 18 standards burden. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 19 Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential 20 under a protective order is not sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are 21 sealable. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(A). 22 Here, there is no objection to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. The designating party is 23 Defendant. While Defendant filed a declaration supporting its motion to seal, the Court finds this 24 the sealing motion overbroad and unsupported. On the whole, the information sought to be sealed 25 pertains to generalized allegations regarding Defendant’s price-fixing conduct. The fact that the 26 information sought to be sealed is “designated ‘Highly Confidential’ under the Parties’ Stipulated 27 Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD 1 Protective Order” is insufficient. Declaration of J. Clayton Everett (“Everett Decl.”) § 2, Dkt. 71. 2 Likewise, the generalized contention that the information sought to be sealed “‘contain[s] trade 3 secrets and other confidential business information regarding the TDK Defendants’ existing and 4 || potential customers and the TDK Defendants’ business with those customers” is insufficient to 5 overcome the strong presumption in public access. See Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 6 (noting that broad allegations of harm are insufficient to meet the compelling interest standard). 7 Paragraph Sought to be Ruling 8 Sealed 9 |I| 16 DENIED. This material relates to Plaintiffs general allegations of Defendants’ anticompetitive practices. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 10 (embarrassment or incrimination not cause to seal). Defendants’ declaration i provides no specific compelling reasons why this paragraph must be sealed. 417 DENIED. This material relates to the Plaintiff's general allegations against the = 12 Defendants. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019). Defendants’ declaration provides no 13 specific compelling reasons why this paragraph must be sealed. 4] 235 DENIED. This material relates to the Plaintiff's general conspiracy allegations 14 against the Defendants. Defendants’ declaration provides no specific 15 compelling reasons why this paragraph must be sealed. = 237-70 DENIED. The material relates to the Plaintiff's general allegations against the Q 16 Defendants and concerns external communications. The Court does not find any trade secrets or customer information (not already disclosed in the 17 unredacted complaint). See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (embarrassment or incrimination not cause to seal). Defendants’ declaration provides no specific 18 compelling reasons why this paragraph must be sealed. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the sealing motion at ECF 68. Plaintiff shall 20 |! consult Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2). Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion 21 so to provide sufficient reasons in supporting declarations no later than 10 days from the filing of 22 || this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 21, 2019 25 26 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 27 Case No.: 5:19-cv-00078-EJD 28 || ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT