Riddick v. Sony Electronics Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 23, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00319
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERT RIDDICK, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00319-BAS-JLB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 18) 14 SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Sony Electronics’s (“Sony”) motion to seal. 18 (ECF No. 18.) Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of Plaintiff Bert Riddick’s 19 Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. These 20 documents were previously filed on the docket. Plaintiff does not oppose. (ECF No. 21.) 21 For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 21.) 22 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 25 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 26 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 27 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 28 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 1 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 2 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 3 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 4 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 5 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 6 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 7 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 8 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 9 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 10 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 11 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 12 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 13 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. An action’s 14 complaint, and its associated exhibits, are more than tangentially related to the merits of 15 the case. Id. at 1098. Similarly, a party’s opposition to a motion to dismiss is more than 16 tangentially related to the merits of the case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098. 17 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 18 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become 19 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 20 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 21 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). As to this last category, courts have been 22 willing to seal court filings containing confidential business material, “such as marketing 23 strategies, product development plans, licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin 24 data,” where the parties have been able to point to concrete factual information to justify 25 sealing. See, e.g., Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 26 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 27 lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 28 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A 1 blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause,” let alone compelling 2 reasons, for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; San Jose Mercury 3 News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The decision to 4 seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon 5 consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 6 U.S. at 599. 7 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set 8 forth in this Court’s standing order for filing documents under seal. See Standing Order of 9 the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases ¶5. The rule permits sealing to “only those 10 documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information.” Id. Thus, 11 although sometimes it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever 12 possible a party must redact. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for 13 redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo 14 Am. Corp., No. 11–cv–00410–YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) 15 (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential information). 16 II. ANALYSIS 17 Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and 18 portions of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss that discuss an internal 19 Sony marketing presentation. (ECF No. 18-1 at 3.) Specifically, Defendant seeks to file 20 under seal two lines in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint that quote from the marketing 21 presentation, two lines in the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint that quote 22 from the marketing presentation, and six lines of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s 23 motion to dismiss that quote and discuss the marketing presentation. (Id.) Defendant 24 contends there is a compelling reason to file these portions of the Amended Complaint 25 under seal because they provide insight into Sony’s marketing strategy, which Sony’s 26 competitors could unfairly use to undermine Sony’s position in the market. (Id.) 27 Defendant claims it maintains diligent efforts to keep these strategy presentations secret, 28 and it will be harmed if the information remains public. I Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have found future business planning and 2 ||competitive strategy are quintessential business information that may harm a firm’s 3 || competitive standing if disclosed. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10- 4 || 1823JLR, 2012 WL 5476846, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2012); BBK Tobacco & Foods 5 ||LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric. Inc., No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL, 2021 WL 5578864, at *4 6 ||(D. Ariz. Nov. 29, 2021). Defendant’s forward-looking, confidential business strategy 7 ||presents a compelling reason to seal. Moreover, Defendant, in line with this Court’s 8 || standing order and the general preference for redactions, has moved to file under seal only 9 ||the lines of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and opposition to Defendants’ motion to 10 |/dismiss that quote or reference the internal presentation. Defendant’s request is thus 11 tailored to only the sensitive business information at issue. 12 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal is granted. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to seal is GRANTED. (ECF No. 15 || 18.) The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute ECF No. 1-2 with ECF No. 18-4 and then 16 previously docketed ECF No. 1-2 under seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to 17 || substitute ECF No. 1-8 with ECF No. 18-5 and then file previously docketed ECF No. 1-8 18 under seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute ECF No. 8 with ECF No. 18-6 and 19 file previously docketed ECF No. 8 under seal. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 A 22 DATED: August 23, 2024 ( yi A A (Hiphan 6 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 _A.