E. & J. Gallo Winery, et al. v. Strategic Materials, Inc.

Filing 135

ORDER granting, in part, and denying, without prejudice, the motions to seal. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/3/2020. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

E. &. J. GALLO WINERY and GALLO
GLASS COMPANY

11

Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

13
14

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-01709-EPG

STRATEGIC MATERIALS, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

In connection with their motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, and the various

19

oppositions and replies thereto, Plaintiffs E. & J. Gallo Winery and Gallo Glass Company

20

(“Gallo”) and Defendant Strategic Materials, Inc. (“SMI”) each filed notices to seal their filings.

21

(ECF Nos. 98, 100, 105, 113, 116, 120, 123, 126). At various times, they also filed memoranda in

22

support of the other party’s sealing motions. (ECF Nos. 103, 104, 132, 133).
The underlying case has settled, (ECF No. 234),1 but the Court must still consider the

23
24

sealing motions. For the reasons below, the Court grants in part, and denies without prejudice in

25

part the sealing motions as further detailed below.

26

\\\

27
1

28

For administrative purposes, the Court will mark the case as closed when the sealing motions have been finalized. If
the parties do not wish to seal any documents, they should so inform the Court.

1

1

I.

2
3

The Ninth Circuit has set forth substantial case law concerning sealing dispositive
motions. Local Rule 141 provides additional standards for this district.

4
5

LEGAL STANDARDS

The parties appear to agree that the sealing requests are governed by the compellingreason test for dispositive motions.

6

11

Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds a
compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without
relying on hypothesis or conjecture. The court must then conscientiously balance
the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain
judicial records secret. What constitutes a “compelling reason” is best left to the
sound discretion of the trial court. Examples include when a court record might be
used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, to circulate libelous
statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's
competitive standing.

12

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016) (alterations,

13

internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).

7
8
9
10

Parties must also be specific when identifying the information that they seek to keep

14
15

sealed. As the Ninth Circuit has explained when denying a request by the United States to seal

16

documents:

17

Although the United States identifies the redactions it seeks by page number and
line number, it does not provide similarly specific compelling reasons to justify
these redactions. Instead, the United States purports to justify each redaction by
listing one of four general categories of privilege (privacy, law enforcement,
confidential source, and ongoing investigation). Simply mentioning a general
category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with
the documents, does not satisfy the burden.

18
19
20
21

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183–84 (9th Cir. 2006).

22
23
24
25
26
27

This district’s local rules add to the requirements. Under Local Rule 141(b), a party’s
“‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing” and,
among other things, “the total number of submitted pages shall be stated in the request.”
II.

APPLICATION TO PARTIES’ REQUESTS
In balancing the tests, the Court notes at the outset that it did not make any decisions

based on the filings. Thus, the public’s interest at issue in the compelling reasons balancing test

28
2

1

carries less weight. To the extent the Court orders sealing, it has weighed the public’s interest

2

against the requesting party’s interest.

3

A.

4

At ECF No. 98, Gallo requested to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 99.

5

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 99

At ECF No. 103, SMI filed a statement in support of such request.

6

1.

7

ECF NO. 98 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This request did not comply with the above standards. First, it did not list any statutory or

8

other authority for sealing. Second, it did not list the number of pages. Third, it did not provide

9

any specific reasons for why the Court should seal the documents. In fact, it provided no reasons

10

at all.

11

Thus, request number 98 is denied without prejudice. Gallo has fourteen days to file a new

12

sealing motion covering the documents it wishes to seal, if it chooses to do so. The Court will

13

keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a

14

renewed motion.

15

2.

SMI filed a statement in support of Gallo’s request. (ECF No. 103). Its statement meets

16
17

ECF NO. 103 IS GRANTED

the relevant standards.

18

Thus, the following Exhibits to the Fieber Declaration (ECF No. 99-3) are sealed until the

19

Court orders otherwise, and only the parties, their respective litigation counsels and the Court

20

shall have access thereto:

21

Exhibit to Fieber

ECF

22

Declaration

Number

23

A

99-4

Contains SMI’s pricing, material volumes

24

D

99-5

Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers,

25
26

Compelling reasons2

material volumes
E

99-5

Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers,

27
28

2

Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI.

3

1
2

Exhibit to Fieber

ECF

Declaration

Compelling reasons2

Number

3

material volumes

4
G

99-8

Contains SMI’s pricing

I

99-8

Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain

J

99-8

Contains SMI’s pricing.

K

99-8

Contains SMI’s pricing, supply chain, customers,

5
6
7
8

material volumes
9
L

99-8

Contains SMI’s pricing, material volumes

O

99-8

Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes

P

99-8

Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes,

10
11
12

pricing

13
14

R

99-8

pricing

15
B.

16

Gallo filed a statement in support at ECF No. 104.
1.

19

ECF NO. 100 IS GRANTED

Here, SMI complied with the relevant local rule and legal standards. Therefore, the Court

20
21

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 101

At ECF No. 100, SMI requests to seal or redact certain documents filed at ECF No. 101.

17
18

Contains SMI’s supply chain, material volumes,

grants SMI’s motion.

22

Exhibit to Holocek
Declaration (ECF No. 101-6)
Exhibit 1

23
24
25

Exhibit 7

26
27
28

3

Compelling reasons3
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial

Each of the compelling reasons relates to the type of information which, if made public, would harm SMI.

4

1
2
3

Exhibit to Holocek
Declaration (ECF No. 101-6)

information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information, business
plans, strategies
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Business plans, strategies
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,

Exhibit 13

4
5

Exhibit 16

6
7
8

Exhibit 21

9
10

Exhibit 22

11
12
13

Exhibit 26
Exhibit 23

14
15
16

Exhibit 28

17
18

Exhibit 30

19
20

Exhibit 33

21
22
23

Exhibit 35

24
25

Exhibit 36

26
27

Compelling reasons3

Exhibit 37

28
5

1
2
3

Exhibit to Holocek
Declaration (ECF No. 101-6)

sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial

Exhibit 38

4
5
6

Exhibit 39

7
8

Exhibit 40

9
10

Exhibit 41

11
12
13

Exhibit 45

14
15

Exhibit 46

16
17

Exhibit 47

18
19
20

Exhibit 48

21
22

Exhibit 49

23
24

Exhibit 50

25
26
27

Compelling reasons3

Exhibit 51

28
6

1
2
3

Exhibit to Holocek
Declaration (ECF No. 101-6)

information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information

Exhibit 52

4
5

Exhibit 53

6
7
Exhibit 54
8
9
10

Exhibit 57

11
12

Exhibit 73

13
14
Exhibit 76
15
16
17

Exhibit 80

18
19

Exhibit 82

20
21

Exhibit 85

22
23
24

Exhibit 92

25
26

Compelling reasons3

Exhibit 93

27
28
7

1

Exhibit to Holocek
Declaration (ECF No. 101-6)
Exhibit 94

2
3
4

Exhibit 95

5
6

Exhibit 96

7
8
9

Exhibit 99

10
11
Exhibit 100
12
13
Exhibit 101

14
15
16

Compelling reasons3
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information
Pricing, volumes, supply
chains, customers,
sensitive financial
information

In addition, SMI’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for

17
summary judgment and separate statement of undisputed facts in supported of its motion for
18
summary judgment contain redactable information because they refer to the above. Therefore, the
19
Court permanently redacts such information.
20
2.
21

ECF NO. 104 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Gallo’s Statement in Support of ECF No. 101-6 (ECF No. 104) does not meet the

22
standards for sealing described above. Therefore, the Court denies it without prejudice. To the
23
extent Gallo wishes to seal documents that are not already sealed by this order, Gallo may re-file
24
its request within fourteen days of the date of this order, if it chooses to do so. The Court will
25
keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a
26
renewed motion.
27
28
8

1

C.

2

At ECF No. 105, Gallo sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection

3

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 106

with its Daubert motion at ECF No. 106. SMI filed a statement in support at ECF No. 118.

4

1.

ECF NO. 105 IS GRANTED

5

Exhibits A, C, D and E to the Declaration of Joseph M. Alioto (ECF No. 106-2) each

6

contain information concerning Gallo’s operations, suppliers and redacted terms of its supply

7

agreement with SMI. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Gallo’s request to seal such information.

8
9
10

2.

ECF NO. 118 IS DENIED AS MOOT

SMI’s statement in support of ECF No. 105 covers documents that the Court has already
decided to seal. Therefore, it is DENIED AS MOOT.

11

D.

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 114

12

At ECF No. 113, Gallo requested to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection

13

to its opposition to SMI’s motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 114. SMI did not file a

14

statement in support.

15
16

1.

ECF NO. 113 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This request was insufficiently specific and did not contain the total number of pages

17

Gallo wants sealed. Therefore, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The exhibits Gallo

18

requests to have sealed will remain sealed at this time. Filings at ECF No. 114 and the exhibits

19

thereto will remain sealed or redacted for fourteen days to give Gallo an opportunity to refile its

20

request, if it chooses to do so. The Court will keep the documents it seeks to seal left under seal

21

for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a renewed motion.

22

E.

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 117

23

At ECF No. 116, SMI sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed in connection

24

with its opposition to Gallo’s motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 117. Gallo filed a

25

statement in support at ECF No. 119.

26

1.

27

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

28

ECF NO. 116 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law to the extent SMI seeks to
9

1

seal documents it considers confidential to SMI. However, it makes no argument for why the

2

Court should seal documents that only Gallo has found confidential. Therefore, the Court seals

3

the following exhibits to the Holecek declaration (ECF No. 117-3):

4

6

Exhibit to Holecek
Declaration (ECF
No. 117-3)
1

7

4

5

8

6

9
12
10
13

11

14
16

12
13

15

17
18
21

16

22

17

31

14

18

34

19
35
20
37

21

38
39

22
23

Compelling reasons4

Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business plans, strategies, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business plans, strategies
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information
Business plans, strategies
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information
Business plans, strategies
Business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business plans, strategies, business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information, business plans, strategies, business relationships
Business relationships
Pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain, customers, sensitive financial
information

The following documents, which reference the above cited exhibits, are permanently

24
25

redacted:

26

•

27

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 117-1); and,

28

4

Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authority in Support of Defendant’s

Each of the compelling reasons relates to the type of information which, if made public, would harm SMI.

10

1

•

2

117-2).

3

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts (ECF No.

The Court otherwise denies SMI’s motion without prejudice. If SMI chooses to, it may

4
refile a motion to seal the exhibits it noted that only Gallo had marked as highly confidential,
5
which are discussed immediately below.
6
2.
7

ECF No. 119 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Gallo’s statement in support of ECF No. 116 does not comply with the legal standards.

8
Therefore, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The exhibits Gallo requests to have sealed
9
will remain sealed at this time. The following exhibits to ECF No. 117-3 will remained sealed for
10
fourteen days to give Gallo an opportunity to refile its request:
11

•

Exhibit 29

•

23

Exhibit 28

•

22

Exhibit 27

•

21

Exhibit 25

•

20

Exhibit 24

•

19

Exhibit 23

•

18

Exhibit 20

•

17

Exhibit 15

•

16

Exhibit 10

•

15

Exhibit 8

•

14

Exhibit 3

•

13

Exhibit 2

•

12

Exhibit 33

24
F.

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 121

25
At ECF No. 120, Gallo sought to seal certain documents it filed at ECF No. 121. SMI did
26
not file a statement in support.
27
\\\
28
11

1

1.

2

ECF NO. 120 IS GRANTED

This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law. Therefore, the Court

3

seals the Exhibit U to the Reply Declaration of Julie L. Fieber (ECF No. 121-4) because it

4

contains confidential information regarding Gallo’s plant operations, the disclosure of which

5

would harm Gallo’s competitive standing.

6

G.

7

At ECF No. 123, SMI requests to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 124.

8

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 124

Gallo did not file a statement in support.

9

1.

10

ECF NO. 123 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This request is insufficiently specific. It merely states that the documents it wishes to have

11

redacted “contain proprietary and commercially sensitive aspects of both SMI’s and Gallo’s

12

business and mutual business relationship, including but not limited to pricing, clients, supply

13

chains, internal processes, profits, and the terms of the parties’ Supply Agreement.” (ECF No.

14

123, at 2). It also does not contain the total number of pages it seeks to have sealed or redacted.

15

The filings SMI requests to have sealed (ECF Nos. 124, 124-2) will remain redacted at this time.

16

SMI has fourteen days to refile its request, if it chooses to do so. The Court will keep the

17

documents it seeks to seal left under seal for fourteen days or until the Court rules on a renewed

18

motion.

19

H.

20

At ECF No. 126, Gallo sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF Nos.

21

FILINGS AT ECF NOS. 127-129

127-129. SMI filed a statement in support at ECF No. 132.

22

1.

23

ECF NO. 126 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This request is insufficiently specific because it merely states certain documents have

24

confidential information “as discussed above,” but without detailing what type confidential

25

information is at issue or how its release will harm Gallo. The filings Gallo requests to have

26

sealed or redacted will remain sealed or redacted at this time. Gallo has fourteen days to refile its

27

request.

28

\\\
12

1

2.

2
3

ECF NO. 132 IS GRANTED

This statement in support of ECF No. 126 complies with the local rules and relevant case
law. Therefore, the following shall remain sealed:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Declaration and
ECF Number
Fieber, ECF No.
127-1
Fieber, ECF No.
127-1
Fieber, ECF No.
128-1
Fieber, ECF No.
128-1
Alioto, ECF No.
129-1

12

15

I.

26

Information regarding SMI’s revenue, profit margins, business
plans, strategies, supply chains, operational capabilities, and
customers

FILINGS AT ECF NO. 131

1.

ECF NO. 130 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This request complies with the local rules and relevant case law to the extent SMI seeks to

21

25

A

Gallo filed a statement in support at ECF No. 133.

20

24

Business relationship between the parties

At ECF No. 130, SMI sought to seal or redact certain documents it filed at ECF No. 131.

19

23

D

J

to permanently redact Gallo’s briefs at ECF Nos. 127 and 128 is granted.

17

22

C

Business relationship and certain details about Supply
Agreement
Business relationship and certain details about Supply
Agreement
Business relationship between the parties

Stuart Harden and Mark Murray refer to the exhibits above. For the same reason, SMI’s request

16

18

E

In addition, Gallo’s briefs in opposition to SMI’s motions to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts

13
14

Exhibit Compelling reasons5

seal documents it considers confidential itself. Therefore, the Court seals the following exhibits to
the Holecek declaration (ECF No. 131-2):
Exhibit to ECF Compelling reasons6
No. 131-2
2
Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain,
customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the
parties
5
Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain,

27
5

28

6

Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI.
Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause SMI.

13

1
2
3
4
5

Exhibit to ECF
No. 131-2

customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the
parties
Information concerning the business relationship between the parties
Information concerning the business relationship between the parties
Information concerning SMI’s pricing, cullet volumes, supply chain,
customers, sensitive financial information, business relationship between the
parties

7
8
9

6

However, SMI does not argue that its brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

7
8
9

Experts should be redacted. Therefore, the Court will grant SMI fourteen days to file a request to
redact ECF No. 131, should it wish to do so. Until such time, ECF No. 131 will remain redacted.
2.

10

13
14
15
16
17

law. Therefore, the following shall remain sealed:
Exhibit to ECF No.
131-2
10
11
15
III.

18

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court denies the following sealing requests without prejudice: ECF Nos. 98, 104,
113, 119, 123, 126.

22

The Court denies the sealing request at ECF No. 118 as moot.

23

25

Information regarding Gallo’s costs for specific batch components
Confidential details about Gallo’s operations, including percentages of
components used in its recipes
Information regarding Gallo’s costs for specific batch components

The Court grants in part the following sealing requests: ECF Nos. 116, 130

20

24

Compelling reasons7

The Court grants the following sealing requests: ECF Nos. 100, 103, 105, 120, 132, 133

19

21

ECF NO. 133 IS GRANTED

This statement in support of ECF No. 130 complies with the local rules and relevant case

11
12

Compelling reasons6

To the extent any sealing motion was denied, the parties have fourteen days from the date
of this order to refile their requests. Until such time, the Court will keep the filings sealed or
redacted.

26

Given the vast number of documents at issue here, the Court requests that additional

27
28

7

Each of the compelling reasons relates to the harm releasing the information would cause Gallo.

14

1

sealing requests contain tables that clearly indicate: (1) the document at issue, (2) the

2

corresponding ECF number, and (3) the specific compelling reasons for the request. Along with

3

Word versions of proposed orders, the Court requests the parties send Word versions of the

4

sealing requests they may file.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 3, 2020

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15