Grano v. Sodexo, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 16, 2022
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01818
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENT GRANO, et al., Case No.: 3:18-cv-1818-RSH-BLM

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING 13 v. AND DENYING PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS 14 SODEXO MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., UNDER SEAL 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 333, 335, 354, & 366] 16 AND ALL RELATED CASES 17 18 There have been four motions for leave to file documents under seal pending in this 19 case for nearly a year. The motions to seal all relate to summary judgment motion briefing. 20 The Court addresses each motion to seal separately below, granting and denying the 21 motions in part. 22 I. Legal Standard 23 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 24 records and documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept 26 secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City 27 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 28 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 1 To overcome this strong presumption and seal a judicial record related to a 2 dispositive motion, a party must articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific 3 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 4 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 5 process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations 6 omitted).1 Compelling reasons “exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle 7 for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 8 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 9 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may 10 lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 11 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 12 Once a party articulates their compelling reasons, courts must then “conscientiously 13 balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 14 judicial records secret.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 15 However, even if it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, a party 16 should still redact records whenever possible. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a 17 preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); 18 Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., No. 11–cv–00410, 2012 WL 1497489 at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential 20 information). See also Chambers Civ. Proc. § VIII (Protective Orders and Requests to File 21 Under Seal). 22 As further explained in this Order, the Parties have articulated common bases for 23 requesting that the Court seal certain records, including trade secrets, proprietary business 24

25 26 1 “[A] particularized showing under the good cause standard of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)] will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material 27 attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation 28 marks and citations omitted). 1 information, and confidentiality designations under the Court’s December 6, 2019, 2 Amended Protective Order, ECF No. 55. Accordingly, the Court addresses the legal 3 standard for sealing court records as applied to each of these categories of material below. 4 A. Trade Secrets 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”) grants trial courts broad 6 discretion to seal court documents to protect “a trade secret or other confidential research, 7 development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); see Kamakana, 447 8 F.3d at 1179 (“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 9 in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 10 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade 11 secrets.”) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). In the Ninth Circuit, “[a] trade secret may 12 consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s 13 business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who 14 do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 15 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 1939)). 16 B. Proprietary Business Information 17 Courts may also justify sealing court filings to prevent judicial documents from 18 being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 19 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th 20 Cir. 2008) (reversing district court order not to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and 21 guaranteed minimum payment terms” from licensing agreements). Nevertheless, “[a]n 22 unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a 23 competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” 24 Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02098, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25 5, 2015) (quoting Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. 26 Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)). See In re Pac. Fertility Ctr. Litig., No. 18-CV-01586, 2021 WL 27 1081129, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2021) (holding that “generalized statement that 28 exposure of ‘commercially sensitive business information would allow potential 1 competitors to gain insight into . . . operations and business relationships such that its 2 business could be significantly and irreparable harmed’ fails to satisfy the compelling 3 reasons standard.”). 4 As such, courts will seal records containing detailed confidential business 5 information where the parties articulate a concrete, non-speculative harm. Compare FTC 6 v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17–CV–220, 2019 WL 95922, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) 7 (granting motion to seal under the compelling reasons standard where records “contain[ed] 8 detailed, non-public and confidential . . . information” regarding “commercial negotiations 9 and agreements with customers, [] competitive strategy, and [] research and development 10 activities”), with Ochoa, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1–2 (declining to seal “franchise 11 agreements” because supporting declaration “simply sa[id] that the documents ‘contain 12 confidential and proprietary business information, including financial terms’ that if 13 disclosed ‘may be exploited by competitors.’”), and Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 14 11-CV01846, 2013 WL 412864, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (“Although Samsung 15 recites boilerplate terms that this information is proprietary and confidential, it does not 16 provide a particularized showing of how this information would be detrimental if 17 disclosed.”). 18 Additionally, the fact that parties contract or agree to treat certain information or 19 material as confidential is an insufficient basis in and of itself for a court to seal a judicial 20 record and override the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process. See, e.g., 21 Rumble, Inc. v. Daily Mail & Gen. Tr. PLC, No. CV 19-08420, 2020 WL 6154061, at *1 22 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020) (“[T]he fact that the parties agreed to keep their agreement 23 confidential is not a compelling enough reason to shield the public from its terms.”); 24 Ambrosino v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 11-cv-1319, 2014 WL 931780, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 25 Mar. 10, 2014) (“The existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not 26 constitute good cause, let alone a compelling reason, to seal”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 C. Protective Orders 2 “A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show ‘good cause’ for sealing 3 particular documents.” Millennium Lab’ys, Inc. v. Darwin Select Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv- 4 00295, 2015 WL 2452472, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2015). “Such blanket orders are 5 inherently subject to challenge and modification, as the party resisting disclosure generally 6 has not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual 7 document.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.--N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 8 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). As such, a party must still make a “particularized showing” to 9 meet the “compelling reasons” standard to seal discovery material attached to dispositive 10 motions, even if that discovery material is already subject to a preexisting protective order. 11 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Indeed, the Amended Protective Order in this case requires 12 that all parties “must seek permission of the Court to file the material under seal. A sealing 13 order may issue only upon a showing that the information is privileged or protectable under 14 the law.” ECF No. 52-1 at 7. 15 II. Analysis 16 A. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 333 17 Sodexo Management, Inc. (“Sodexo”), filed its Motion for Leave to File Documents 18 Under Seal on July 16, 2021. ECF No. 333. Sodexo asks the Court to seal 11 records related 19 to Sodexo’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Punitive Damages [ECF No. 20 343] “to prevent public disclosure of sensitive, proprietary information, and trade secrets.” 21 ECF No. 333 at 2. In support, Sodexo claims the documents were produced as 22 “confidential” under the Amended Protective Order [ECF No. 52-1] and include “extensive 23 proprietary business information that is confidential in nature, including policy and 24 procedure, safety control processes, and other internal information related to Sodexo’s 25 business operations.” ECF No. 333 at 2. No party filed opposition to sealing these 26 documents. The Court addresses each specific document in the table below: 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 ||| Exhibit No. 12 | Three-page excerpt Denied. The Court finds no compelling 3 ||| (CMS00007704- | from a 2008 reason to seal this record. Neither a 4 05, 7723), ECF | Subcontract Agreement | protective order nor an agreement between 5 ||| No. 334-1 between Sodexo parties is a sufficient basis to seal a 6 Management, Inc., and | judicial record. Sodexo has not provided 7 Cargill Meat Solutions | any information about whether the 8 Corp. for provision of — | confidentiality provisions apply or are still 9 food supplies and in effect or what particularized, concrete 10 services. harm to their competitive standing may 11 result from public disclosure of the 12 document. 13 ||| Exhibit No. 13 | Three-page excerpt Denied. The Court finds no compelling 14 (CMS00000001- | from a 2015 Master reason to seal this record. Neither a 15 ||| 2, 6), ECF No. Supply Agreement by __| protective order nor an agreement between 16 ||| 334-2 and between Sodexo parties is a sufficient basis to seal a 17 Operations, LLC, and __| judicial record. Sodexo has not provided 18 Cargill, Inc., and Cargill | any information about whether the 19 Limited. confidentiality provisions apply or are still 20 in effect or what particularized, concrete 21 harm to their competitive standing may 22 result from public disclosure of the 23 document. 24 25 26 27 28

2 ||| Exhibit No. 14 | 79 pages from Sodexo’s | Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 3 (SDX000059- HACCP / Food Safety | sealing this document because it codifies 4 137), ECF No. Program materials. proprietary business information that S 334-3 could harm Sodexo’s competitive 6 standing. 7 ||| Exhibit No. 15 | 24 pages of Sodexo’s Denied as to SDX00961 1-22 but granted 8 (SDX009611- Training Rosters and as to SDX009623-34. There are 9 34), ECF No. internal training related | compelling reasons to seal portions of this 10 334-4 material dated March document because it contains proprietary 1 2017. business information related to Sodexo’s 12 operations. The rest of this document 13 contains only names and signatures of 14 training session attendees, which Sodexo 15 has provided no particularized factual 16 showing to justify sealing. 17 ||| Exhibit No. 16 19 pages of Sodexo’s Denied as to SDX010030-41 but granted 18 |!) (SDX010030- Training Rosters and _| as to SDX010042-48. There are 19 48), ECF No. internal training related | compelling reasons to seal portions of this 20 334-5 material dated document because it contains proprietary 21 September 2017. business information related to Sodexo’s 22 operations. The rest of this document 23 contains only names and signatures of 24 training session attendees, which Sodexo 25 has provided no particularized factual 26 showing to justify sealing. 27 28

2 ||| Exhibit No. 17 | 31 pages of Sodexo’s Denied as to SDX009795, SDX0098 14, 3 (SDX009795- Training Rosters and and SDX009824, but granted as to the 4 ||| 9825), ECF No. | internal training related | remainder of Exhibit 17. There are 5 ||| 334-6 material dated compelling reasons to seal portions of this 6 November 2017. document because it contains proprietary 7 business information related to Sodexo’s 8 operations. The rest of this document 9 contains only names and signatures of 10 training session attendees, which Sodexo 11 has provided no particularized factual 12 showing to justify sealing. 13 ||| Exhibit No. 18 | 28 pages of Sodexo’s Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 14 (SDX010049- “FoodSafety Walk the | sealing this document because it codifies 15 ||| 76), ECF No. Talk” internal training _| proprietary business information that 16 ||| 334-7 material. could harm Sodexo’s competitive 17 standing. 18 19 ||| Exhibit No. 19 | Sodexo’s two-page Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 209 ||| (SDX012320- internal “New Hire — sealing this document because it codifies 71 ||| 21), ECF No. Two Step Food proprietary business information that 92 ||) 334-8 Training Program could harm Sodexo’s competitive 23 Training Roster.” standing. 24 25 26 27 28

2 ||| Exhibit No.20 | Sodexo’s 34-page slide | Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 3 (SDX021139- presentation on “Food _ | sealing this document because it codifies 4 ||| 72), ECF No. Safety and USMC” proprietary business information that S ||| 334-9 dated July 2017. could harm Sodexo’s competitive 6 standing. 7 ||| Exhibit No. 21 Sodexo’s four-page Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 8 (SDX021954- “Ground Beef Policy” | sealing this document because it codifies 9 ||| 57), ECF No. dated January 1, 2012, | proprietary business information that 10 ||| 334-10 revised April 24,2013. | could harm Sodexo’s competitive 11 standing. 12 ||| Exhibit No. 22 | Five pages of Sodexo’s | Denied. This document contains only the 13 (SDxX025121- Training Rosters. names and signatures of training session 14 25), ECF No. attendees, which Sodexo has provided no IS 334-11 particularized factual showing to justify 16 sealing. 17 18 B. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 335 19 Sodexo and Cargill Meat Solutions, Corp. (“Cargill”), filed their Motion for Leave 20 || to File Documents Under Seal on July 16, 2021. ECF No. 335. The Movants ask the Court 21 seal four records related to Sodexo’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding 22 Punitive Damages [ECF No. 343] and Cargill’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 23 ||Sodexo’s Cross-Claim [ECF No. 342] “to prevent public disclosure of sensitive, 24 || proprietary information and trade secrets.” ECF No. 335 at 3. In support, the Movants claim 25 || the documents were produced as “confidential” under the Amended Protective Order [ECF 26 ||No. 52-1]; include “extensive proprietary business information that is confidential in 27 || nature, including pricing information and allowances for various Cargill products supplied 28 ||to Sodexo and other specific terms, conditions, and provisions specifically negotiated

1 || between the parties”; and that it “would be commercially detrimental for both Cargill and 2 || Sodexo in their business relationships with current and future customers for these contracts 3 ||to be filed publicly . . . .” ECF No. 335 at 3. No party filed opposition to sealing these 4 || documents. The Court addresses each specific document in the table below:

6 ||| Exhibit No. 1 37-page 2015 Master Denied. The Court finds no compelling 7 ||| (CMS00000002- | Supply Agreement by __ | reason to seal this record. Neither a 8 ||| 37), ECF No. and between Sodexo protective order nor an agreement between 9 ||| 336 at 1-38 Operations, LLC, and __| parties is a sufficient basis to seal a judicial 10 Cargill, Inc., and record. Neither Sodexo nor Cargill has 11 Cargill Limited. provided any information about whether 12 the confidentiality provisions apply or are 13 still in effect or what particularized, 14 concrete harm to their competitive standing 15 may result from public disclosure of the 16 document. 17 ||| Exhibit No. 2 20-page 2008 Denied. The Court finds no compelling 18 ||| (CMS00007704- | Subcontract Agreement | reason to seal this record. Neither a 19 ||| 24), ECF No. between Sodexo protective order nor an agreement between 20 ||| 336 at 39-60 Management, Inc., and | parties is a sufficient basis to seal a judicial 21 Cargill Meat Solutions | record. Neither Sodexo nor Cargill has 22 Corp. for provision of | provided any information about whether 23 food supplies and the confidentiality provisions apply or are 24 services. still in effect or what particularized, 25 concrete harm to their competitive standing 26 may result from public disclosure of the 27 document. 28

2 ||| Exhibit No. 3 Seven-page 2009 Denied. The Court finds no compelling 3 ||] (CMS00007725- | Amendment Number reason to seal this record. Neither a 4 ||| 30), ECF No. One to the 2008 protective order nor an agreement between S ||| 336 at 61-67 Subcontract Agreement | parties 1s a sufficient basis to seal a judicial 6 by and between Sodexo | record. Neither Sodexo nor Cargill has 7 Management, Inc., and | provided any information about whether 8 Cargill Meat Solutions | the confidentiality provisions apply or are 9 Corp., for the provision | still in effect or what particularized, 10 of food supplies and concrete harm to their competitive standing 11 services. may result from public disclosure of the 12 document. 13 ||| Exhibit No. 4 Seven-page 2013 Denied. The Court finds no compelling 14 (CMS00007785- | Amendment Number reason to seal this record. Neither a 15 88), ECF No. Nine to the 2008 protective order nor an agreement between 16 ||| 336 at 68-70 Subcontract Agreement | parties is a sufficient basis to seal a judicial 17 by and between Sodexo | record. Neither Sodexo nor Cargill has 18 Management, Inc., and | provided any information about whether 19 Cargill Meat Solutions | the confidentiality provisions apply or are 20 Corp., for provision of | still in effect or what particularized, 21 food supplies and concrete harm to their competitive standing 22 services. may result from public disclosure of the 23 document. 24 25 C. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 354 26 Vincent Grano (“Grano’”) filed his Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal 27 September 17, 2021. ECF No. 354. Grano asks the Court to seal five records related to 28 ||his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 359] to Sodexo’s Motion for Partial Summary

1 ||Judgment regarding Punitive Damages [ECF No. 343] and Grano’s Response in 2 || Opposition [ECF No. 356] to Cargill’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Scott 3 || Stillwell [ECF No. 339] “to prevent public disclosure of sensitive proprietary information 4 ||and trade secrets.” ECF No. 354 at 2. In support, Grano claims the documents were 5 ||produced as “confidential” under the Amended Protective Order [ECF No. 52-1] and 6 |linclude “proprietary business information, including policies, procedures, supplier 7 ||approval programs and other internal information related to Defendants’ business 8 || operations.” ECF No. 354 at 2. No party filed opposition to sealing these documents. The 9 || Court addresses each specific document in the table below:

11 ||| Proposed Sealed | Two-page excerpt from | Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 12 ||} Document No. 1 | Cargill’s Global Beef sealing this document because it codifies 13 (CMS00010411, | Supplier Approval proprietary business information and trade 14 ||| 10420), ECF No. | Program policy dated secrets that could harm Cargill’s 15 355-3 March 10, 2008, revised | competitive standing. 16 December 1, 2015. 17 18 ||| Proposed Sealed | Compilation of 34 Denied. The Court finds no compelling 19 ||| Document No. 2 | pages of complaint reason to seal this record. Neither a 20 (CMS00011378, | notifications and one protective order nor an agreement between 21 11459-60,11462, | investigation report parties is a sufficient basis to seal a 22 ||| 11464-72,11474, | related to Cargill’s judicial record. No party has articulated 23 ||| 11476-78,11553, | suppliers in or around what particularized, concrete harm to their 24 ||| 11615, 15385- 2017. competitive standing may result from 25 ||| 86, 11542-46, public disclosure of the document. 26 ||| 12022-33), ECF 27 ||| No. 355-4 28

2 ||| Proposed Sealed | Six-page report froma | Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 3 ||] Document No.3 | study conducted at the | sealing this document because it codifies 4 |!| (CMS00012278- | Cargill Innovation proprietary business information and trade S ||} 83), ECF No. Center. secrets that could harm Cargill’s 6 355-5 competitive standing. 7 ||| Proposed Sealed | Sodexo’s Daily Denied. The Court finds no compelling 8 Document No. 4 Temperature Log dated | reason to seal this record. Neither a 9 (SDX008295), | October 21, 2017. protective order nor an agreement between 10 ||| ECF No. 355-1 parties is a sufficient basis to seal a 1 judicial record. The document contains the 12 cooking temperatures for various food 13 items, but no sensitive proprietary 14 information or trade secrets. No party has 15 articulated what particularized, concrete 16 harm to their competitive standing may 17 result from public disclosure of the 18 document. 19 Proposed Sealed | Sodexo’s four-page Granted. Compelling reasons exist for 20 |!) Document No. 5 | “Ground Beef Policy” | sealing this document because it codifies 21 (SDX21954-55), | dated January 30, 2012, | proprietary business information that 22 ECF No. 355-2 | revised April 24, 2013. | could harm Sodexo’s competitive 23 standing. 24 25 D. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 366 26 Grano filed his Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal on September 22, 27 ||2021. ECF No. 366. Grano asks the Court to seal seven records related to his Response in 28 Opposition [ECF No. 368] to Cargill’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 341] “to

1 || prevent public disclosure of sensitive proprietary information and trade secrets.” ECF No. 2 at 2. In support, Grano claims the documents were produced as “confidential” under 3 ||the Amended Protective Order [ECF No. 52-1] and include “proprietary business 4 || information, including policies, procedures, supplier approval programs and other internal 5 ||information related to Defendants’ business operations.” ECF No. 366 at 2. No party filed 6 || opposition to sealing these documents. The Court addresses each specific document in the 7 || table below:

9 ||| Proposed Sealed | One-page table of Denied. The Court finds no compelling 10 ||| Document No.1 | incoming beef trim reason to seal this record. Neither a 11 ||| (CMS000000100), | microtesting results. protective order nor an agreement 12 ||| ECF No. 367-2 between parties is a sufficient basis to 13 seal a judicial record. The document 14 does not contain sensitive proprietary 15 information or trade secrets. No party 16 has articulated what particularized, 17 concrete harm to their competitive 18 standing may result from public 19 disclosure of the document. 20 ||| Proposed Sealed | Four-page Corrective Denied. The Court finds no compelling 21 Document No.2 | Action Report regarding | reason to seal this record. Neither a 22 ||| (CMS000006388- | Cargill’s Schuyler site. | protective order nor an agreement 23 ||| 91), ECF No. 367- between parties is a sufficient basis to 24 |) 3 seal a judicial record. The document 25 does not contain sensitive proprietary 26 information or trade secrets. No party 27 has articulated what particularized, 28

2 concrete harm to their competitive 3 standing may result from public 4 disclosure of the document. 5 ||| Proposed Sealed | Two-page report of Denied. The Court finds no compelling 6 ||| Document No.3 | product information reason to seal this record. Neither a 7 ||| (CMS00000076), | regarding Sodexo’s protective order nor an agreement 8 ||| ECF No. 367-4 Angus Ground Beef between parties is a sufficient basis to 9 Patties. seal a judicial record. The document 10 does not contain sensitive proprietary 1] information or trade secrets. No party 12 has articulated what particularized, 13 concrete harm to their competitive 14 standing may result from public 15 disclosure of the document. 16 ||| Proposed Sealed | 31-page compilation of | Denied. The Court finds no compelling 17 ||| Document No.4 | Cargill beef invoices, reason to seal this record. Neither a 18 |!) (CMS00012988, | some of which already | protective order nor an agreement 19 15393-99, 12994, | contain redactions. between parties is a sufficient basis to 20 ||| 15401-08, 13011, seal a judicial record. The invoices 21 13020, 12639, contain some contact information but no 22 12552, 12598, sensitive payment information, sensitive 23 12602, 15391-92, proprietary information, or trade secrets. 24 ||| 12546, 13184, No party has articulated what 25 ||| 12697, 13143), particularized, concrete harm to their 26 ||| ECF No. 367-5 competitive standing may result from 27 public disclosure of the document. 28

2 ||| Proposed Sealed | According to Grano’s Denied as moot. 3 ||| Document No. 5 Motion to Seal, the 4 || (SDX14209-11) | document is a “10/21/17 5 Daily Log.” However, 6 Grano did not include 7 the document. 8 ||| Proposed Sealed | Sodexo’s two-page Denied. The Court finds no compelling 9 Document No.6 | Daily Temperature Log | reason to seal this record. Neither a 10 (SDX025781, dated October 21, 2017. | protective order nor an agreement 11 8295), ECF No. between parties is a sufficient basis to 12 ||| 367-6 seal a judicial record. The document 13 contains the cooking temperatures for 14 various food items, but no sensitive 15 proprietary information or trade secrets. 16 No party has articulated what 17 particularized, concrete harm to their 18 competitive standing may result from 19 public disclosure of the document. 20 ||| Proposed Sealed | Six-page compilation of | Denied. The Court finds no compelling 21 ||| Document No.7 | produce invoices from _ | reason to seal this record. Neither a 22 ||| (SDX021281-82, | Coast Citrus, some of | protective order nor an agreement 23 ||| 21306-07, 21325- | which already contain | between parties is a sufficient basis to 24 ||| 26), ECF No. 367- | redactions. seal a judicial record. The invoices do 25 ||| 7 not contain payment information, 26 proprietary information, or trade secrets. 27 No party has articulated what 28

2 particularized, concrete harm to their 3 competitive standing may result from 4 public disclosure of the document. 5 6 IfI. Conclusions and Orders 7 For the reasons above, the Court: 8 1. GRANTS Sodexo’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal [ECF 9 333] as to ECF Nos. 334-3, 334-7, 334-8, 334-9, and 334-10; DENIES the Motion as 10 ECF Nos. 334-1, 334-2, and 334-11; and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 11 to ECF Nos. 334-4, 334-5, and 334-6. 12 2. DENIES Cargill and Sodexo’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under 13 || Seal, ECF No. 335. 14 3. GRANTS Grano’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal [ECF No. 15 as to ECF Nos. 355-2, 355-3, and 355-5; and DENIES the Motion as to ECF Nos. 16 355-1 and 355-4. 17 4. DENIES Grano’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, ECF No. 18 19 5. ORDERS, with respect to those exhibits for which a motion to seal was 20 || granted in part and denied in part [ECF Nos. 334-4, 334-5, and 334-6], that to the extent 21 ||Sodexo wishes to rely on those exhibits for purposes of its briefing, it shall file within 22 || fourteen (14) days of this Order a “public version” of those exhibits including the portions 23 || for which the Court has denied the motion to seal. In the event Sodexo does not file such a 24 “public version” of an exhibit, it may not rely on such an exhibit. 25 6. ORDERS, with respect to any other exhibits for which a motion to seal was 26 || denied, that to the extent a moving party wishes to rely on those exhibits for purposes of 27 |lits briefing, it shall file within fourteen (14) days of this Order an unredacted “public 28

| || version” of those exhibits. In the event a party does not file such a “public version” of an 2 || exhibit, it may not rely on such an exhibit. 3 7. ORDERS the Parties to comply with Section VIII of the undersigned’s 4 || Chambers Civil Procedures regarding any future requests to file documents under seal. 5 SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: August 16, 2022 fitut ¢ Lame 8 Hon. Robert S.Huie 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28