1 2 3 6 7 JAM CELLARS, INC., Case No. 19-cv-01878-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 78, 79, 92 11 Defendant.
12 Pending before the Court is Defendant The Wine Group LLC’s and Plaintiff Jam Cellars, 13 Inc.’s renewed motions to seal portions of the briefs and exhibits filed in relation to Defendant’s 14 motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 78, 79. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 15 motion to seal portions of its motion for a preliminary injunction and related exhibits. See Dkt. 16 No. 92. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS all motions. 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 8 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 9 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 10 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 11 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 12 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 13 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 14 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 15 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 16 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 17 June 30, 2015). 18 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 19 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 20 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 21 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 22 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 23 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 24 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 25 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 26 27 II. ANALYSIS 1 A. Renewed Motion to Seal Related to Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. Nos. 78, 2 79) 3 The parties have provided compelling reasons for sealing portions of the briefs and 4 exhibits attached to Defendant’s summary judgment motion because they contain confidential 5 business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant. 6 See Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Examples [of 7 what constitutes a compelling reason] include when a court record might be used . . . ‘as sources 8 of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”); see also Lucas v. 9 Breg, Inc., No. 15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (sealing sales data broken 10 down by year and product type because it could undermine Plaintiff’s market position if made 11 public); Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 12-cv-3000-AJB (DHB), 2014 WL 690410, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. 12 Feb. 21, 2014) (finding compelling reasons where access to marketing and sales data “may result 13 in improper use by competitors who may circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining 14 the information”). The Court originally denied the parties’ motions to seal because the request to 15 seal the entirety of exhibits was not narrowly tailored. The parties have now tailored the request to 16 conceal only the information regarding the parties’ marketing and competitive strategy, financial 17 information, product development, and confidential trademark enforcement actions. The parties 18 have identified portions of the unredacted versions of briefs and exhibits as containing confidential 19 and proprietary business information, and the Court finds compelling reasons to grant the motions 20 to seal. 21 B. Motion to Seal Related to Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. No. 92) 22 The Court will apply the lower good cause standard when analyzing Plaintiff’s motion to 23 seal documents related to preliminary injunction motion. 24 JaM Cellars has satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information 25 contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 26 See Chrysler, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1097. Before the parties filed declarations in support of the 27 motion to seal, the parties engaged in a settlement conference and promptly filed a notice of 1 documents that are the subject of the parties’ administrative motions to seal. Thus, these 2 || documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and 3 || the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule 4 on the motions. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 5 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is 6 || even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on 7 || Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”’). 8 Accordingly, because the documents divulge proprietary and confidential information 9 || unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds 10 that there are compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of 11 San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 6 7 JAM CELLARS, INC., Case No. 19-cv-01878-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 78, 79, 92 11 Defendant.
12 Pending before the Court is Defendant The Wine Group LLC’s and Plaintiff Jam Cellars, 13 Inc.’s renewed motions to seal portions of the briefs and exhibits filed in relation to Defendant’s 14 motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 78, 79. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 15 motion to seal portions of its motion for a preliminary injunction and related exhibits. See Dkt. 16 No. 92. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS all motions. 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 8 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 9 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 10 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 11 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 12 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 13 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 14 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 15 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 16 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 17 June 30, 2015). 18 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 19 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 20 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 21 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 22 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 23 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 24 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 25 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 26 27 II. ANALYSIS 1 A. Renewed Motion to Seal Related to Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. Nos. 78, 2 79) 3 The parties have provided compelling reasons for sealing portions of the briefs and 4 exhibits attached to Defendant’s summary judgment motion because they contain confidential 5 business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant. 6 See Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Examples [of 7 what constitutes a compelling reason] include when a court record might be used . . . ‘as sources 8 of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”); see also Lucas v. 9 Breg, Inc., No. 15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (sealing sales data broken 10 down by year and product type because it could undermine Plaintiff’s market position if made 11 public); Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 12-cv-3000-AJB (DHB), 2014 WL 690410, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. 12 Feb. 21, 2014) (finding compelling reasons where access to marketing and sales data “may result 13 in improper use by competitors who may circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining 14 the information”). The Court originally denied the parties’ motions to seal because the request to 15 seal the entirety of exhibits was not narrowly tailored. The parties have now tailored the request to 16 conceal only the information regarding the parties’ marketing and competitive strategy, financial 17 information, product development, and confidential trademark enforcement actions. The parties 18 have identified portions of the unredacted versions of briefs and exhibits as containing confidential 19 and proprietary business information, and the Court finds compelling reasons to grant the motions 20 to seal. 21 B. Motion to Seal Related to Preliminary Injunction Motion (Dkt. No. 92) 22 The Court will apply the lower good cause standard when analyzing Plaintiff’s motion to 23 seal documents related to preliminary injunction motion. 24 JaM Cellars has satisfied the standards for sealing because the unredacted information 25 contains confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of the parties. 26 See Chrysler, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1097. Before the parties filed declarations in support of the 27 motion to seal, the parties engaged in a settlement conference and promptly filed a notice of 1 documents that are the subject of the parties’ administrative motions to seal. Thus, these 2 || documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and 3 || the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule 4 on the motions. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 5 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is 6 || even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on 7 || Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”’). 8 Accordingly, because the documents divulge proprietary and confidential information 9 || unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds 10 that there are compelling reasons to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of 11 San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) 12 (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no 5 13 longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, 14 || No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s 3 15 disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the a 16 exhibit). 2 17 || 1. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons noted above, the Court GRANTS the parties’ administrative motions to 19 file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f\(1), documents filed under seal as to which 20 || the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. 21 22 24 || Dated: 9/17/2020 Abagpeedl 5 We). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 26 United States District Judge 27 28