Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided June 3, 2022·No. 3:18-cv-01927·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES Case No.: 18cv1927 JO (MSB) RESEARCH, INC., 11 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, 12 v. 13

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, 14 INC., 15 Defendant. 16

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, 18 Counter-Claimant, 19 v. RESEARCH, INC., 21 Counter-Defendant. 22 23 24 Plaintiff Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. (“WTRI”) and Defendant Project 25 Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”)’s filed a Joint Motion to Seal in connection with the 26 Parties’ Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions. (Doc. No. 328). For the reasons set 27 forth below, the Parties’ Joint Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN- 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 5 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 6 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 7 omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 8 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 9 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” 10 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 11 United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 12 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 13 presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 14 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The showing required to meet this 15 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that “is more 16 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. 17 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 18 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1097–99. When the underlying motion 19 does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. 20 Id. Nondispositive evidentiary motions—including “routine motions in limine” and 21 Daubert motions may be “strongly correlative to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1099. 22 The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial 23 court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” 24 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599 26 Here, the Parties seek to seal three general categories of documents: (1) documents 27 previously ordered sealed by the Court; (2) documents that contain, reference, or discuss 28 non-public business information, including PMI’s alleged trade secrets; and (3) “third- 1 party” documents that were marked “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order. 2 (Doc. No. 328 at 5–9; 19–20). 3 The Court addresses each category of documents in turn. First, the Court notes 4 that in its prior August 10, 2021 Order, the Court already granted the Parties’ request to 5 seal certain documents which: (1) contained, referenced, or discussed non-public business 6 information; and/or (2) contained confidential communications between WTRI and the 7 National Science Foundation (“NSF”). (See Doc. No. 167 at 2–4). The Parties do not 8 point to anything that would call the Court’s prior Order into question. The Court, 9 therefore, renews the findings in that Order here. 10 Second, the Parties request that the Court seal a new set of documents containing 11 non-public information—including customer names, pricing information, and 12 descriptions of PMI’s alleged trade secrets. As the Court noted in its prior Order, 13 “[d]ocuments containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in 14 this Circuit.” Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG), 15 2021 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) (collecting cases); see also Apple Inc. 16 v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that 17 could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that 18 would overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of public access to court records); In 19 re Incretin-Based Therapies Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD), 2021 WL 20 873290, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) (“Courts have long acknowledged that the risk of 21 competitive harm through disclosure of confidential and proprietary information warrants 22 maintaining documents under seal, even in light of the general presumption of public 23 access to judicial documents.”). 24 Here, the Court finds the Parties have sufficiently justified sealing limited portions 25 of the Parties’ exhibits that contain such confidential, non-public information. 26 Nevertheless, a number of the Parties’ requests are not narrowly tailored “to remove from 27 public view only the material that is protected.” Wasito v. City of San Diego, No. 19-CV- 28 2395 JLS (JLB), at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. 6 1 Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). The Court addresses these requests in more detail 2 below. 3 Third, WTRI seeks to seal certain “third party” documents out of an “abundance of 4 caution.” (Doc. No. 328 at 14). It appears the “third party” documents WTRI is 5 referencing are excerpts from the deposition transcript of Dr. Alicia Sanchez and Misael 6 Labrador. Id. at 8–9. As an initial matter, it is unclear to the Court how these transcripts 7 are “third-party documents” when they are transcripts of depositions taken in this case. 8 Regardless, the Court has addressed WTRI’s request—and PMI’s response—below. 9 Finally, the Court notes numerous documents were lodged for sealing that: (1) the 10 Parties did not address; (2) the Parties do not now oppose to publicly filing; and/or (3) 11 were already publicly filed on the docket.1 Given the lack of opposition, the Court will 12 order these documents to be publicly filed, to the extent they have not been already. 13 The Court has considered and ruled on each of the exhibits the Parties designated 14 for sealing as set forth in the following table: 15 Document Portions Order 16 Expert Rebuttal Report of Section F.a GRANTED. Previously Clark Aldrich (Patiño Decl., sealed pursuant to the Court’s 17 Ex. 1) (Doc. No. 252-2) August 10, 2021 Order. 18 Expert Report of Mickey A. Page 61, footnote GRANTED. Previously 19 Ferri, Ph.D. (Patiño Decl., Ex. 339; Page 85, ⁋ sealed pursuant to the Court’s 2) (Doc. No. 252-3) 105(e) August 10, 2021 Order. 20 Expert Report of Carlyn Irwin Page 20, footnote GRANTED. Previously 21 (Patiño Decl., Ex. 4) (Doc. No. 80; Page 27, ⁋ 63, sealed pursuant to the Court’s 22 252-4) first sentence that August 10, 2021 Order. cites to footnote 23 111. 24 Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo ⁋⁋ 78, 81 GRANTED. Previously 25 26 27 1 The Parties’ conduct resulted in the Court reviewing and addressing documents that should not have been lodged for sealing. The Parties are admonished such conduct 28 1 Document Portions Order 2 Valerdi (Patiño Decl., Ex. 6) sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Doc. No. 252-5) August 10, 2021 Order. 3 Excerpts from the Deposition 195:19–204:22; GRANTED. Previously 4 Transcript of Jeremiah Stepan 295:18–300:25; sealed pursuant to the Court’s 5 (Patiño Decl., Ex. 12) (Doc. 305:1–312:25; August 10, 2021 Order. No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc. (Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related