Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 78

ORDER granting 73 Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 10/11/11. (lmt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re FERRERO LITIGATION CASE NO. 11-CV-205 H (CAB) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On October 10, 2011, Defendant Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. (“Ferrero”) filed a motion to seal the unredacted version of Ferrero’s response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and the declaration of Bernard F. Kreilmann in support of Ferrero’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Doc. No. 73.) Specifically, Ferrero seeks to file under seal footnote 5 on page 7 of its opposition, and paragraphs 19 through 29 of the declaration of Bernard F. Kreilmann. (Id. at 4.) Ferrero’s motion indicates that the documents it seeks to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive financial information which, if disclosed, could be potentially prejudicial to Ferrero’s business or operations. (Id. at 3-4.) “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there 28 -1- 11cv205 1 is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A 3 party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong 4 presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate 5 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, ... that outweigh the general history 6 of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 7 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation 8 marks omitted). The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be 9 overcome “only by an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential 10 to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian Publ’g 11 Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Press-Enterprise 12 Co. v. Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)). 13 The Court concludes that good cause exists to seal the requested documents. 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file documents in support of their 15 opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under seal. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 DATED: October 11, 2011 18 ______________________________ 19 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 11cv205