Rindlisbacher et al v. Steinway & Sons Incorporated

Filing 197

ORDER denying Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 179 ) and the Supplement to Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 186 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 183 , 184 , 185 , which contained the redactions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to LRCiv 5.6( e) that the lodged documents at Docs. 180 , 181 shall not be filed and the Court will not consider them. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e) that Plaintiffs may, within five (5) days from the entry of this order, resubmit a Motion for P artial 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. See attached order for additional information. Signed by Judge Michael T. Liburdi on 3/11/2020. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kevin H Rindlisbacher, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01131-PHX-MTL

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.”

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.

Id. (internal citation omitted). After

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

-2-

1

detailed financial information at trial).

2

explain why this information contains any proprietary market or competitive value, given

3

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.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Moreover, the parties have made no effort to

Conclusion
IT IS ORDERED denying the Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 179) and the Supplement

to Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 186).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 183, 184, 185, which contained the
redactions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e) that the lodged documents
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

16

on Constructive Fraud and Separate Statement of Facts Supporting Plaintiffs’ Motion for

17

Partial Summary Judgment on Constructive Fraud, for filing in the public record.

18

Dated this 11th day of March, 2020.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-