Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Case No. 20-cv-07683-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' REVISED JOINT OMNIBUS 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 359 11 Defendants. 12 13 In light of the parties’ voluminous administrative motions to seal, the Court ordered the 14 parties to meet and confer and file a single administrative motion to seal and proposed order that 15 consolidated all pending motions to seal. See Dkt. No. 286. Parties submitted their omnibus 16 motion. See Dkt. No. 289. Upon review of the parties’ filing, the Court determined that their 17 sealing request was not narrowly tailored and ordered parties to file a “revised omnibus sealing 18 order that ha[d] more narrowly tailored requests for sealing/redactions.” Dkt. No. 353. The parties 19 filed a revised omnibus motion to seal which is now pending before the Court. Dkt. No. 359. 20 (“Revised Omnibus Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Revised 21 Omnibus Motion. 22 I. LEGAL STANDARD 23 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 24 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 25 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 26 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 27 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 1 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 2 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 4 28 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79. “In 5 general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify 6 sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper 7 purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 8 libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, 9 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not 10 subject to the same strong presumption of access. See id. Because such records “are often 11 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 12 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179– 13 80 (quotations omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or 14 harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 15 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations 16 of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 17 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitted). 18 Because the documents are connected to the cross motions for summary judgment, which 19 are more than tangentially related to the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the 20 “compelling reasons” standard in evaluating parties’ Revised Omnibus Motion. 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 The Court GRANTS the parties’ Revised Omnibus Motion. The Court finds that these 23 documents contain personally and commercially sensitive information or confidential business 24 information that satisfies the compelling reasons standard and outweighs the public’s interest in 25 viewing the documents. See Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 26 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (stating that “[t]his Court has found compelling reasons 27 to seal personally identifiable information”); Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13CV-05966, 2015 WL 1 sensitive mental health records constitutes a compelling reason to seal”); Vietnam Veterans of Am. 2 || v. C.ILA., No. C 09-0037, 2012 WL 1094360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) (sealing exhibits 3 containing “sensitive personal information about certain individuals, including health □□□□□□□□□□ In 4 || re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 5 || 2017) (observing that sealing confidential business information “prevent[ed] competitors from 6 || gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 7 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (sealing 8 || “confidential product and business information which is not intended for public disclosure”). 9 Wl. CONCLUSION 10 The Court GRANTS the parties’ motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), 11 documents filed under seal as to which the revised omnibus motion is granted will remain under 12 || seal. As previously stated, Parties’ initially filed omnibus motion was overbroad and not narrowly 13 tailored. Any documents that parties requested to be sealed in that initial omnibus motion that 14 || were not part of the more narrowly tailored request in this revised omnibus motion must be made 3 15 available to the public. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS parties to file public versions of all a 16 || documents not contemplated by the revised omnibus motion on the docket no later than August 17 || 19, 2024. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: 8/9/2024 21 Abeiperd 3, Mbl).. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28