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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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 [e-mail], 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