Rindlisbacher v. Steinway & Sons Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01131
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Kevin H Rindlisbacher, et al., No. CV-18-01131-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Steinway Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 179) and the 16 Supplement to the Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 186), which was filed pursuant to 17 this Court’s February 20, 2020 Order (Doc. 182). The parties move to file under seal 18 Plaintiffs’ lodged Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Constructive Fraud (Doc. 180) 19 and the Separate Statement of Facts (Doc. 181). Plaintiffs have filed redacted versions of 20 the same, (Docs. 183, 184, 185). For the following reasons, the Joint Motion to File Under 21 Seal (Doc. 179) and the Supplement to the Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 186) are 22 denied. 23 I. Background 24 The parties in this case have stipulated to a Protective Order (Doc. 40) regarding 25 materials that were exchanged throughout the course of litigation and contained trade 26 secrets, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. The 27 parties now jointly request that this Court seal information in Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for 28 Summary Judgment on Constructive Fraud and Separate Statement of Facts that contains 1 “confidential financial information” related either to: (1) Defendant’s records of its 2 Steinway Grand sales in Maricopa County prior to December 1, 2010; (2) Defendant’s 3 records of its Steinway Grand sales in 2009 and 2010 at its West Hollywood location; or 4 (3) Plaintiffs’ income statements from their Spokane Steinway Dealer operation from 2007 5 to 2010. (Doc. 186 at 3-4.) 6 II. Legal Standard 7 Because there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents, 8 a party seeking to seal a judicial record “bears the burden of overcoming this strong 9 presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). This 11 means the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 12 that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. 13 at 1178-79 (internal citation omitted). Before sealing certain judicial records, the court 14 must “‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who 15 seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. (internal citation omitted). After 16 considering these interests, if the Court decides to seal certain records, it must “articulate 17 the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal 18 citation omitted). 19 III. Analysis 20 The Joint Motion correctly identifies numerous instances where courts have sealed 21 documents that contained trade secrets or sources of business information that might harm 22 a party’s competitive standing. (Doc. 186 at 2-3.) But the parties have not stated with 23 particularity why any of the redacted sales figures contain trade secrets. cf. Apple Inc. v. 24 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1224-25 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding 25 compelling reasons existed to seal confidential financial information where it concerned 26 “costs, sales, profits, and profit margins” that constituted trade secrets, where parties 27 presented declarations articulating the harm they would suffer if competitors gained access 28 to the information, and where parties had already mutually agreed not to present the 1 || detailed financial information at trial). Moreover, the parties have made no effort to 2|| explain why this information contains any proprietary market or competitive value, given || that it is 10 to 13 years old. The redacted information represents sales conducted in a 4|| substantially different market environment from today. Because the parties have not shown 5 || compelling reasons to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, the Joint 6 || Motion to Seal and Supplement are denied. 7\| IV. Conclusion 8 IT IS ORDERED denying the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 179) and the Supplement 9|| to Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 186). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 183, 184, 185, which contained the redactions. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e) that the lodged documents 13} at Docs. 180, 181 shall not be filed and the Court will not consider them. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e) that Plaintiffs may, within 15 || five (5) days from the entry of this order, resubmit a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Constructive Fraud and Separate Statement of Facts Supporting Plaintiffs’ Motion for || Partial Summary Judgment on Constructive Fraud, for filing in the public record. 18 Dated this 11th day of March, 2020.

Michael T. Liburdi 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-