E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc. et al

Filing 354

ORDER GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part Gallo's Request to File Documents Under Seal 353 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/27/2012. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 D. GREG DURBIN (SBN 81749) McCORMICK BARSTOW SHEPPARD WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 5 River Park Place East P.O. Box 28912 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone: (559) 433-1300 Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 greg.durbin@mccormickbarstow.com D. PETER HARVEY (SBN 55712) NAOMI JANE GRAY (SBN 230171) DONALD A. THOMPSON (SBN 260076) HARVEY SISKIND LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 354-0100 Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 pharvey@harveysiskind.com ngray@harveysiskind.com dthompson@harveysiskind.com 13 14 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant E. & J. Gallo Winery and Counterdefendants Ecco Domani USA, Inc. and Tequila Supremo, S.A. de C.V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 FRESNO DIVISION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. PROXIMO SPIRITS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AGAVERA CAMICHINES, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexico corporation; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:10-CV-00411 LJO JLT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GALLO’S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (DOC. 353) Defendants. 25 26 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 27 28 ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS Case No. 1:10-CV-00411 LJO JLT 1 Before the Court is the request to seal invoices submitted for consideration in connection with 2 Gallo’s motion for attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 353) Gallo contends the documents should be sealed for 3 several reasons, including the need to protect attorney-client communications, attorney-work product, 4 financial information that would impact counsel’s competitive advantage and confidential business 5 information related to Gallo. 6 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v. 7 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 8 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th 9 Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the 10 public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public interest 11 in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use 12 of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley 13 Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). In addition, in 14 trademark/dress matters, attorney billing rates which are not publicly known and are “competitively 15 sensitive,” warrant sealing. China Intl Travel Servs. (USA) v. China & Asia Travel Serv., 2008 U.S. 16 Dist. LEXIS 106622 at *29 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008); Mine O'Mine, Inc. v. Calmese, 2012 U.S. Dist. 17 LEXIS 53077 at *10 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2012). 18 The Court has reviewed the invoices submitted by the McCormick Barstow and the Harvey 19 Siskind firms. It notes that invoices prepared by McCormick Barstow were well-prepared, for the most 20 part, to exclude attorney-client communications and attorney-work product information or information 21 that bears on Gallo’s trade secrets. Thus, the Court finds that except for a few entries, noted below, the 22 billing records will not be sealed. 23 The Harvey Siskind billing records are a different matter. Nearly all entries reveal not just what 24 was done by counsel but reveal also information from which it can be gleaned, why it was done. In 25 addition, there is information from the content of communication with Gallo from which Gallo’s 26 business strategies can be inferred. Therefore, as to these records, they will be ordered SEALED. 27 /// 28 -1ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS Case No. 1:10-CV-00411 LJO JLT 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. 4 The following information from the billing records from McCormick Barstow, SHALL BE SEALED: 5 a. p. 51, the last entry on the page related to work done on 1/31/11; 6 b. p. 63, the 5th entry related to work done on 5/23/11; 7 c. p. 73, the 2nd and 3rd entry related to work done on 8/17/11; 8 d. p. 85, the entry related to work done on 10/28/11; 9 e. p. 85, the 1st entry related to work done on 10/31/11; 10 f. p. 93, the entry related to work done on 12/2/11; 11 g. p. 93, the 2nd and 3rd entry related to work done on 12/7/11; 12 h. p. 112-p. 113, the entry related to work done on 3/8/12 that begins on p. 112 and 13 ends on p. 113; 14 i. p. 113, the 1st full entry related to work done on3/8/12; 15 j. p. 113, the 5th entry related to work done on 3/9/12; 16 17 2. The remaining information from the billing records from McCormick Barstow, SHALL NOT BE SEALED 18 3. The entire billing records from Harvey Siskind, SHALL BE SEALED; 19 4. Within two court days, counsel SHALL file on the public docket and version of the 20 McCormick Barstow billing records redacted consistently with this order: 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 -2ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS Case No. 1:10-CV-00411 LJO JLT 1 5. Within two court days, counsel SHALL lodge to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov, a 2 version of the version of the McCormick Barstow billing records that highlights the entries that will be 3 filed under seal. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: June 27, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS Case No. 1:10-CV-00411 LJO JLT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?