Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc. et al

Filing 84

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND REDACT INFORMATION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/18/14. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND
REDACT INFORMATION

X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. and
JEWELL ATTACHMENTS, LLC,
Defendants.

15
16
17

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

18
On

19

September

consideration

2014,

“Request

Defendants

Information

22

Fees,” a proposed sealing order, and the documents sought to be

23

sealed or redacted.

[Their]

Documents
Motion

for

and

in

21

with

Seal

for

camera

Connection

to

submitted

20

in

a

8,

Redact

Attorney’s

24

The documents sought to be sealed comprise Defendants’

25

attorneys’ billing statements for services rendered in this case

26

and

27

Sealing Req. 1:1-10.) Defendants also seek to redact from their

28

attorney’s fees motion and supporting documents the “rates billed

settlement

communications

between

1

the

parties.

(Defs.’

1

by Defendants’ attorneys” and “settlement terms proposed by the

2

parties.” (Id. at 1:11-17.)

3

Defendants

argue:

“[s]ince

the[

billing]

statements

4

were correspondence between Defendants and their attorneys, they

5

fall squarely within the attorney client privilege. They were

6

also attorney work product containing not only the hours, rates,

7

and fees incurred, but descriptions of the matters and tasks

8

performed

9

argue

by

“the

each

attorney.”

parties’

(Id.

settlement

3:4-7.)

Defendants

[communications]

11

disclosure[,]”

12

disadvantage in future settlement negotiations if the terms of

13

their settlement discussions were available to competitors in the

14

marketplace.” (Id. at 3:24-25, 4:2-4.) Lastly, Defendants contend

15

“[t]he rates charged by Defendants’ attorneys are trade secret

16

information, the disclosure of which would likely harm Defendants

17

and

18

engagements.” (Id. at 4:7-9.)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

attorneys

“the

in

parties

their

would

future

that
[be

is

protected

as

‘confidential

and

information’

qualify

also

10

their

commercial

at

put]

at

negotiations

a

of

from

severe

similar

Defendants’ sealing request fails to comply with Local
Rule 141(b), which prescribes in relevant part:
If a party seeks to seal documents, the party
shall [file] . . . a “Notice of Request to
Seal Documents[,]” . . .
The Notice shall describe generally the
documents sought to be sealed, the basis for
sealing, the manner in which the “Request to
Seal Documents,” proposed order, and the
documents themselves were submitted to the
Court, and whether the Request, proposed
order, and documents were served on all other
parties.

28
2

1

Defendants did not file a Notice of Request to Seal Documents on

2

the public docket in connection with their sealing request.

3

Further,

Defendants

demonstrate that it has been met. “Two standards generally govern

6

motions to seal documents . . . .” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors

7

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[T]he resolution of a

8

dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is

9

at

the

Request

interest

to

in

Seal

applicable

5

of

their

the

sealing

heart

in

discuss

4

the

standard

neither

Documents,

ensuring

the

nor

‘public's

10

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public

11

events.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

12

1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist.

13

Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Accordingly, a party

14

seeking

15

motion

16

‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” Williams v. U.S. Bank

17

Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Kamkana, 447

18

F.3d at 1178). Conversely, “a party seeking to seal a document

19

attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate ‘good

20

cause’ to justify sealing.” Id. (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678).

21

“Even under the ‘good cause’ standard . . . , however,

22

a party must make a ‘particularized showing’ with respect to any

23

individual document in order to justify [its] sealing . . . .”

24

Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-CV-01455-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474,

25

at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

26

1180); accord Muench Photography v. Pearson Edu., Inc., No. 3:12-

27

cv-01927, 2013 WL 6698465, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013).

28

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples

to
or

seal
one

a

judicial

that

is

record

presented

3

attached
at

trial

to

a

must

dispositive
articulate

1

or articulated reasoning,” are insufficient. Ferrington, 2013 WL

2

3814474, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

3

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks

4

omitted).

5

justifications’ necessarily ‘fail[s] to demonstrate any specific

6

prejudice or harm.” Muench Photography, 2013 WL 6698465, at *1

7

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186).

“[A]

party

that

offers

‘tepid

and

general

8

Here, Defendants “ha[ve] not articulated a sufficient

9

basis, under either the good cause standard or the compelling

10

reason

standard,

for

11

documents/information.

12

(denying

13

Muench Photography, 2013 WL 6698465, at *1 (“Billing rates for

14

legal

15

Defendants’

16

sealed and information redacted do not satisfy the “particular

17

showing” required. For example, Defendants argue they would be

18

prejudiced in future settlement negotiations if their settlement

19

communications with Plaintiff were made public without providing

20

any “specific examples or articulated reasoning” to support that

21

conclusory argument. Ferrington, 2013 WL 3814474, at *1.

request

services

to

.

sealing”

and/or

Ferrington,
seal

.

.

conclusory

attorney

are

not

arguments

redacting

2013

WL

billing

the

3814474,

records);

entitled
why

the

to

be

subject
at
see

*2
also

sealed.”).

documents

should

be

22

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ sealing request is

23

DENIED. Since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if a sealing

24

“[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to

25

the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been

26

denied,” the documents emailed to the courtroom deputy clerk for

27

judicial

28

returned to the moving parties. United States v. Baez–Alcaino,

in

camera

consideration

4

are

treated

as

having

been

1

718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (indicating that when a

2

judge denies a sealing request the party submitting the request

3

then decides how to proceed in light of the ruling).

4

Dated:

September 18, 2014

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5