1 2 3 6 7 COLBY TUNICK, Case No. 23-cv-00572-TSH
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 TAKARA SAKE USA INC., et al., UNDER SEAL; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 11 Defendants. UNDER SEAL
12 Re: Dkt. No. 56, 71
13 15 Pending before the Court are administrative motions to consider whether another party’s 16 materials should be sealed pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) brought by Plaintiff Colby 17 Tunick. ECF Nos. 56, 71 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). In evaluating a request to seal, courts consider the public interest in 23 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper 24 use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. Valley 25 Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 “Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents like the one at issue here” – 27 “compelling reasons,” or “good cause.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 1 standard to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Iglesias v. For Life 2 Prods., LLC, No. 21-cv-01147-TSH, 2024 WL 4149944, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024); 3 Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4 24, 2020) (collecting cases); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 5 1092, 1098–1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding compelling reasons standard applies to sealing 6 documents related to non-dispositive motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 7 underlying cause of action.”). Under this standard, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the 8 starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong 9 presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 10 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 11 such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation 12 omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 13 and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for 14 improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 15 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation omitted). Courts 16 must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 17 judicial records secret.” Id. (cleaned up). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to 18 seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 19 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quotation omitted). 21 A. ECF No. 56 22 1. Documents Designated Confidential by Defendant: Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 10 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Boyd Declaration 23 24 In his motion to seal at ECF No. 56, Plaintiff identified materials filed in conjunction with 25 his motion for class certification (ECF No. 55) that had been designated as confidential by 26 Defendant Takara Sake USA Inc. These include Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 10 to the Declaration of 27 Joshua Nassir (ECF 55-11, 55-15, 55-16 and 55-17) and portions of the Declaration of David 1 exhibits. ECF No. 55-5. Plaintiff also redacted portions of his Memorandum of Points and 2 Authorities in support of his motion for class certification referencing those exhibits. ECF No. 55- 3 1. 4 Defendant filed a statement and declaration stating that it seeks to seal Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 5 10 to the Nassir Declaration and to preserve the redactions Plaintiff has made to the Declaration of 6 David Boyd, which directly reference those exhibits. ECF Nos. 60, 60-1. Defendant’s arguments 7 in favor of sealing these four exhibits and maintaining Plaintiff’s redactions to the Boyd 8 Declaration are persuasive. Defendant does not seek to seal any of quotations from those exhibits 9 contained in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities. ECF No. 60 at 2. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion at ECF No. 56 as to Exhibits 4, 8, 9, and 10 11 and ORDERS them sealed. The Court likewise GRANTS the motion as to Plaintiff’s redactions 12 to the Boyd Declaration. The motion at ECF No. 56 is DENIED as to the Plaintiff’s 13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The Court orders Plaintiff to file his Memorandum of 14 Points and Authorities in support of class certification in the public record no sooner than five 15 days and no later than 10 days from the date of this order. 16 2. Documents Designated Confidential by Third Parties 17 a. Exhibit 14 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 18 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 in its entirety. Plaintiff’s 19 Exhibit 14 consists of detailed third-party sales data produced by Circana, LLC (“Circana”). 20 Circana, which is not a party to this action, filed a statement and declaration in support of the 21 Motion as it pertains to market research data that Circana provided to Plaintiff. ECF No. 59; ECF 22 No. 59-1 (Decl. of Brian Burke). Circana is a market research firm that collects, analyzes and 23 markets specialized data. Burke Decl. ¶ 2. Circana’s Principal, Mid Market National, Brian 24 Burke, attests that “Circana’s prinicpal source of operating revenues is the fees it generates from 25 the licensing of its data collections to customers, most of whom are businesses in the 26 manufacturing and retailing of consumer products.” Id. Burke attests that Plaintiff’s counsel paid 27 Circana to deliver a custom report on sales of identified products in California from 2019 to 2024. 1 disclose the data without Circana’s express prior written consent. Id. ¶ 8. Burke attests that the 2 publication of Circana’s confidential report and data would result in irreparable harm to Circana, 3 including “the loss of the revenues Circana would normally receive for the production of the data 4 on request to its paying clients.” Id. ¶ 9. 5 The Court finds this information could potentially put Circana at a competitive 6 disadvantage “by providing for free what [it] has expended resources collecting and charging its 7 clients for,” McMorrow v. Mondelez International, Inc., No. 17-cv-2327-BAS-JLB, 2021 WL 8 488337, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) (internal quotations omitted); see also Iglesias v. For Life 9 Prods., LLC, 2024 WL 4149944, at *4 (finding compelling reasons to seal Circana sales data). 10 The request is narrowly tailored and is unopposed. 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14. 12 b. Exhibit 15 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 13 Exhibit 15 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification consists of sales data previously 14 designated as confidential by third party Albertsons. Plaintiff served the sealing motion on 15 Albertsons in accordance with Local Rule 79-5(f)(2). ECF No. 56-12. Under Civil Local Rule 16 79-5(f)(3), Albertsons had seven days to file a statement or declaration justifying the sealing. 17 Albertsons did not do so. Accordingly, the motion at ECF Nos. 56 is DENIED as to Exhibit 15 to 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 6 7 COLBY TUNICK, Case No. 23-cv-00572-TSH
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 TAKARA SAKE USA INC., et al., UNDER SEAL; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 11 Defendants. UNDER SEAL
12 Re: Dkt. No. 56, 71
13 15 Pending before the Court are administrative motions to consider whether another party’s 16 materials should be sealed pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) brought by Plaintiff Colby 17 Tunick. ECF Nos. 56, 71 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). In evaluating a request to seal, courts consider the public interest in 23 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper 24 use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. Valley 25 Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 26 “Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents like the one at issue here” – 27 “compelling reasons,” or “good cause.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 1 standard to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Iglesias v. For Life 2 Prods., LLC, No. 21-cv-01147-TSH, 2024 WL 4149944, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024); 3 Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4 24, 2020) (collecting cases); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 5 1092, 1098–1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding compelling reasons standard applies to sealing 6 documents related to non-dispositive motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 7 underlying cause of action.”). Under this standard, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the 8 starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong 9 presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 10 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 11 such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation 12 omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 13 and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for 14 improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 15 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation omitted). Courts 16 must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 17 judicial records secret.” Id. (cleaned up). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to 18 seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 19 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quotation omitted). 21 A. ECF No. 56 22 1. Documents Designated Confidential by Defendant: Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 10 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Boyd Declaration 23 24 In his motion to seal at ECF No. 56, Plaintiff identified materials filed in conjunction with 25 his motion for class certification (ECF No. 55) that had been designated as confidential by 26 Defendant Takara Sake USA Inc. These include Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 10 to the Declaration of 27 Joshua Nassir (ECF 55-11, 55-15, 55-16 and 55-17) and portions of the Declaration of David 1 exhibits. ECF No. 55-5. Plaintiff also redacted portions of his Memorandum of Points and 2 Authorities in support of his motion for class certification referencing those exhibits. ECF No. 55- 3 1. 4 Defendant filed a statement and declaration stating that it seeks to seal Exhibits 4, 8, 9 and 5 10 to the Nassir Declaration and to preserve the redactions Plaintiff has made to the Declaration of 6 David Boyd, which directly reference those exhibits. ECF Nos. 60, 60-1. Defendant’s arguments 7 in favor of sealing these four exhibits and maintaining Plaintiff’s redactions to the Boyd 8 Declaration are persuasive. Defendant does not seek to seal any of quotations from those exhibits 9 contained in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities. ECF No. 60 at 2. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion at ECF No. 56 as to Exhibits 4, 8, 9, and 10 11 and ORDERS them sealed. The Court likewise GRANTS the motion as to Plaintiff’s redactions 12 to the Boyd Declaration. The motion at ECF No. 56 is DENIED as to the Plaintiff’s 13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The Court orders Plaintiff to file his Memorandum of 14 Points and Authorities in support of class certification in the public record no sooner than five 15 days and no later than 10 days from the date of this order. 16 2. Documents Designated Confidential by Third Parties 17 a. Exhibit 14 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 18 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14 in its entirety. Plaintiff’s 19 Exhibit 14 consists of detailed third-party sales data produced by Circana, LLC (“Circana”). 20 Circana, which is not a party to this action, filed a statement and declaration in support of the 21 Motion as it pertains to market research data that Circana provided to Plaintiff. ECF No. 59; ECF 22 No. 59-1 (Decl. of Brian Burke). Circana is a market research firm that collects, analyzes and 23 markets specialized data. Burke Decl. ¶ 2. Circana’s Principal, Mid Market National, Brian 24 Burke, attests that “Circana’s prinicpal source of operating revenues is the fees it generates from 25 the licensing of its data collections to customers, most of whom are businesses in the 26 manufacturing and retailing of consumer products.” Id. Burke attests that Plaintiff’s counsel paid 27 Circana to deliver a custom report on sales of identified products in California from 2019 to 2024. 1 disclose the data without Circana’s express prior written consent. Id. ¶ 8. Burke attests that the 2 publication of Circana’s confidential report and data would result in irreparable harm to Circana, 3 including “the loss of the revenues Circana would normally receive for the production of the data 4 on request to its paying clients.” Id. ¶ 9. 5 The Court finds this information could potentially put Circana at a competitive 6 disadvantage “by providing for free what [it] has expended resources collecting and charging its 7 clients for,” McMorrow v. Mondelez International, Inc., No. 17-cv-2327-BAS-JLB, 2021 WL 8 488337, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) (internal quotations omitted); see also Iglesias v. For Life 9 Prods., LLC, 2024 WL 4149944, at *4 (finding compelling reasons to seal Circana sales data). 10 The request is narrowly tailored and is unopposed. 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14. 12 b. Exhibit 15 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 13 Exhibit 15 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification consists of sales data previously 14 designated as confidential by third party Albertsons. Plaintiff served the sealing motion on 15 Albertsons in accordance with Local Rule 79-5(f)(2). ECF No. 56-12. Under Civil Local Rule 16 79-5(f)(3), Albertsons had seven days to file a statement or declaration justifying the sealing. 17 Albertsons did not do so. Accordingly, the motion at ECF Nos. 56 is DENIED as to Exhibit 15 to 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Because Exhibit 15 was lodged in native format (ECF 19 No. 57), the Court does not order Plaintiff to file it on the public docket. Rather, the exhibit 20 remains in the possession of the Clerk’s Office and is not under seal. 21 B. ECF No. 71 – Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply In Support of Motion for Class Certification 22 23 In ECF No. 71, Plaintiff seeks to redact portions of his reply in support of his Motion for 24 Class Certification containing information designated as confidential by non-party Circana. 25 Plaintiff served the sealing motion on Circana in accordance with Local Rule 79-5(f)(2). ECF No. 26 71-4. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Circana had seven days to file a statement or declaration 27 justifying the sealing. It did not do so. Accordingly, the motion at ECF Nos. 71 is denied. The 1 than 10 days from the date of this order. 3 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing motion at ECF No. 56 is GRANTED IN 4 || PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs sealing motion at ECF No. 71 is DENIED. 6 7 Dated: August 22, 2025 8 TAA. ly □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28