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 SEALING NON-PARTY INFORMATION AT TRIAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 444, 445 10 COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court are non-party Danieli Corporation’s (“Danieli”) and non-party Nucor 14 Corporation’s (“Nucor”) administrative motions to seal certain confidential materials Pacific Steel 15 Group (“Plaintiff”) and CMC and its subsidiaries (“Defendants”) intend to use at trial, Dkt. Nos. 16 444 and 445. The Court heard arguments from counsel for the parties and non-parties on October 17 22, 2024. The Court GRANTS Danieli’s request to seal trial exhibits TX0017, TX0053, TX0002, 18 and TX0037. The Court will address the remaining exhibits the motions seek to seal if and when 19 it becomes clear that the parties plan to actually introduce them at trial. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 22 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 23 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 24 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 25 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 26 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 27 strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 1 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 2 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). For example, a court may order 3 sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard of confidential and proprietary business 4 information when public disclosure of such information “could result in improper use by business 5 competitors.” See Hyams v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18-CV-06278-HSG, 2023 WL 2960009, at *2 6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023). 7 A trial “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding of the judicial 8 process and of significant public events.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks 9 omitted). Therefore, a party seeking to seal evidence at trial must articulate “compelling reasons” 10 for doing so. Id.; see also United States v. Bazaarvoice, Inc., No. 13-CV-00133-WHO, 2014 WL 11 11297188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (same). 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 On the first day of trial in this case, October 21, 2024, Danieli and Nucor filed their 14 unopposed motions to seal. See Dkt. Nos. 444, 445. Danieli seeks limited redaction of certain 15 information contained in 37 documents counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants have identified that 16 they intend to introduce and use at trial. See Dkt. No. 445 at 2. Nucor moves to seal six 17 documents, arguing there is no practicable way to redact them. See Dkt. No. 444 at 7. Given the 18 timing and the voluminousness of many of the documents, the Court has not been able to review 19 all of the redactions and documents Danieli and Nucor request to be sealed. As such, the Court 20 will address the requests to seal on an ongoing basis in the order in which the parties plan to 21 introduce the relevant documents at trial. 22 This Order addresses the first four exhibits Plaintiff has notified the Court that it intends to 23 use at trial, which all contain sensitive third-party information. These first four documents all 24 pertain to Danieli’s requested redactions and include: 1) TX0017 (Danieli_0021701); 2) TX0053 25 (Danieli_002829); 3) TX0002 (CMC_0000008797); and 4) TX0037 (CMC-0000120783). See 26 Dkt. No. 447 at 6. 27 Danieli asserts that the redactions it requests “fall into two categories: (1) proprietary and 1 design and process information that has significant economic value for Danieli.” See Dkt. No. 444 2 at 2. The four redactions at issue in this Order fall into the first category, as Danieli alleges they 3 all contain “commercially sensitive price information which if disclosed could reveal Danieli’s 4 intellectual property and internal business processes.” See id. at 6, 7, 12, 13. Danieli seeks to seal 5 the redacted figures as well as any similar information introduced at trial. Id. at 6. 6 The Court finds that the portions of these documents that Danieli proposes to redact 7 contain commercially sensitive and confidential business information that satisfies the compelling 8 reasons standard and outweighs the public’s interest in viewing the documents. Danieli’s 9 proposed redactions in the exhibits at issue are limited to specific and narrowly-identified 10 confidential pricing and royalty amounts.1 The disclosure of this non-public pricing information 11 “could reasonably place [Danieli] at a competitive disadvantage if disclosed.” See Zeiger v. 12 WellPet LLC, 526 F. Supp. 3d 652, 699 (N.D. Cal. 2021); see also In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 13 App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that confidential pricing terms and royalty rates meet the 14 “compelling reasons” standard). Further, Danieli did not voluntarily put this information at issue 15 in this litigation, but nonetheless has narrowly tailored its request to uphold the presumption of 16 public access to the extent possible. See Bazaarvoice, 2014 WL 11297188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17 21, 2014). Accordingly, the Court concludes that sealing the redacted pricing information in the 18 exhibits at issue is justified. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS Danieli’s motion to seal the identified information in trial exhibits 3 TX0017, TX0053, TX0002, and TX0037. Only versions of these exhibits with this information 4 || redacted will be disclosed to the public at or after trial. The Court will also seal from the public 5 any testimony regarding the sealed information contained in these exhibits. The Court will 6 || address any other documents Danieli or Nucor seek to seal if and when the parties confirm on a 7 || rolling basis that they intend to use them at trial. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: 10/23/2024 10 Hed ati JR. 4 I United States District Judge a 12

15 16

= 17

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