Herron v. Best Buy Co. Inc. et al

Filing 141

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/25/15 ORDERING Best Buy's sealing request is granted in part, and denied in part. Best Buy shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed i n Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed. Further, Best Buy shall file the authorized redacted versions of the sealed documents on the public docket within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

CHAD HERRON, individually, on
behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART BEST BUY’S
SEALING REQUEST

v.
BEST BUY STORES, LP, a
Virginia limited partnership;
and Dell, Inc.;

13

Defendants.

14
15

On September 18, 2015, Defendant Best Buy Stores, LP

16

(“Best Buy”) submitted for in camera consideration a Request to

17

Seal

18

Documents,

19

declarations in support thereof, a proposed sealing order, and

20

the 55 pages of documents sought to be sealed. The documents

21

requested to be sealed are identified in a publicly filed Notice

22

of

23

(“Notice”) as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

Documents

Request

a

to

and

to

File

Memorandum

Seal

Redacted

of

Documents

Points

and

to

Versions
&

of

the

Authorities

File

Redacted

Paginated
Documents
to
Seal,
pp.
1-11
(Portions of the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Best Buy Stores,
L.P.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification)[;]
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 12-29
(Portions of the Declaration of Jason Bonfig
in Support of Defendant Best Buy Stores,
1

Subject
and

two

Versions

1

L.P.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification and exhibits thereto);

2
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 30-33
(Portions of the Declaration of Dennis
Tootelian in Support of Best Buy Stores,
L.P.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification)[; and]

3
4
5

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 34-55
(Portions of the Declaration of Conrad M.
Davis, CPA/CFF, CFE in Support of Best Buy
Stores, L.P.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification and exhibits
thereto).

6
7
8
9

(Notice 1:22-2:7, ECF No. 132 (bullet points omitted).)
Best Buy seeks to file the referenced documents under

10
11

seal, arguing:

12

Each of the Subject Documents contains,
excerpts,
abstracts,
and/or
reflects
information . . . which this Court has
already found should properly be sealed in
consideration
of
the
Motion
for
Class
Certification
(see
Dkt.
129).
As
was
previously explained (Dkt. No. 128 and the
related
filings),
the
Subject
Documents
include confidential and/or highly sensitive
proprietary business information about Best
Buy’s internal valuation of laptop computers
and brands, processes for selecting a product
mix,
units
sold,
and
prices
paid
by
customers. The disclosure of this information
would be competitively harmful to Best Buy by
giving
its
detractors,
competitors
and
vendors
valuable
proprietary
information
about Best Buy’s pricing, sales volumes, and
internal models of product valuation, which
extend beyond the laptop models which are the
subject of this litigation.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(Id. at 2:8-19.)

24

Best Buy also requests an order “allow[ing] Best Buy to

25

file redacted versions of the Subject Documents [o]n the public

26

[docket]

27

District Court for the Eastern District of California.” (Id. at

28

4:1-3.)

pursuant

to

Local

Rule

2

140

for

the

United

States

1

DISCUSSION

2

The September 10, 2015 Order Granting Joint Renewed

3

Sealing Request discussed the two standards that generally govern

4

sealing requests. (See Order 4:25-6:8, ECF No. 129; see also

5

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80

6

(9th

7

reasons” sealing standards).) Therefore, they are not repeated

8

herein.

Cir.

9

2006)

(discussing

the

“good

cause”

and

“compelling

Best Buy argues the “good cause” standard governs its

10

sealing

11

standard applies since Best Buy has shown that the majority of

12

documents sought to be sealed and the majority of the proposed

13

redactions satisfy the heightened compelling reasons standard,

14

and Best Buy has not provided sufficient justification to support

15

the

16

standard.

request.

remainder

However,

of

its

the

Court

request

under

need

the

not

decide

lesser

good

which

cause

17

Best Buy has shown, with the exception of page 40 of

18

its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Best Buy

19

Stores,

20

Certification (“P&As”), “compelling reasons” to seal each of the

21

referenced documents; the documents contain business information

22

the public disclosure of which could be detrimental to Best Buy’s

23

competitive interests. Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290

24

F.R.D.

25

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’

26

often warrant protection under seal.” (quoting Nixon v. Warner

27

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978))). In contrast, Best Buy

28

has not shown even good cause to seal page 40 of its P&As. The

L.P.’s

600,

604

Opposition

(E.D.

to

Cal.

Plaintiff’s

2013)

3

Motion

(“‘[S]ources

for

of

Class

business

1

sentence at issue on that page of the P&As “does not appear to be

2

sufficiently

3

harm.” Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 3:12-cv-

4

3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013).

5

detailed

to

be

likely

to

result

in

competitive

Further, Best Buy has shown “compelling reasons” to

6

justify

7

following proposed redactions to its P&As:

8
9

of

the

line 9, ending with “Ex. E.)”;
Page 43, line 13, starting with “fair” through page 43,
line 17, ending with “Equations’”;
Page 46, line 1, starting with “d.” through page 46,
line 6, ending with “time.”;
Page 46, line 8, starting with “Sarfield’s” through
page 46, line 10, ending with “Ex. C.)”; and

20
21

exception

Page 40, line 8, starting with “The” through page 40,

18
19

the

line 12, ending with “IV.B.4.f.)”;

16
17

with

Page 38, line 11, starting with “They” through page 38,

14
15

redactions

line 13, ending with “26.)”;

12
13

proposed

Page 5, line 11, starting with “Indeed” through page 5,

10
11

its

Page 46, line 23, starting with “The” through page 46,
line 24, ending with “Ex. E.)”.

22

Best Buy has not shown justification for these itemized

23

redactions even under the lesser good cause standard. “Because of

24

the

25

[s]ealing orders . . .

26

& Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir.

27

2011).

28

specified with particularity, and there must be [a showing] that

strong

presumption

Therefore,

“any

of

access

to

[court]

records,

.

.

.

must be narrowly tailored.” Perry v. City

interest

4

justifying

closure

must

be

1

the [redaction requested] is narrowly confined to protect that

2

interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis

3

omitted).

4
5

For the stated reasons, Best Buy’s sealing request is
granted in part, and denied in part.

6

Best Buy shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy

7

of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local

8

Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order

9

is filed.

10

Further, Best Buy shall file the authorized redacted

11

versions of the sealed documents on the public docket within

12

seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.

13

Dated:

September 25, 2015

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5