Starbucks Corporation v. Amcor Packaging Distribution, et al.,

Filing 33

ORDER re cross-defendant Ozburn-Hesse Logistic's 31 Request to Seal Document signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/8/2014. Within 10 days from date of Order, OHL shall specifically identify provisions in the Agreement which asserts constituted "sensitive business information" and explain why that information is sensitive and should be sealed or redacted from the public record. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---11 12 STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a corporation, CIV. No. 2:13-1754 WBS CKD 13 ORDER RE: OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTIC’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 AMCOR PACKAGING DISTRIBUTION, a corporation; AMCOR PACKAGING (USA), INC., a corporation; and PALLETS UNLIMINTED, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants. 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 22 Cross-defendant Ozburn-Hessey Logistics (“OHL”) has 23 submitted a Request to Seal Exhibit 5 to its Request for Judicial 24 Notice in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Pallets Unlimited, 25 LLC’s Cross-Complaint. 26 be an agreement between OHL and plaintiff Starbucks. 27 states the document contains sensitive business information that 28 is subject to a confidentiality agreement between those two (Docket No. 31.) 1 Exhibit 5 purports to (Id.) OHL 1 parties. 2 (Id.) A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 3 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 4 access. 5 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 7 general history of access and the public policies favoring 8 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 9 judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and 10 citation omitted). In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must 11 balance the competing interests of the public and the party 12 seeking to keep records secret. 13 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, The party must “articulate compelling Id at 1179. A private confidentiality agreement does not per se 14 constitute a compelling reason to seal a document that outweighs a 15 interests of public disclosure and access. 16 the sensitive information, nor has it indicated to the court why 17 the information is sensitive or pointed out where in the agreement 18 that information is contained. 19 cannot find a compelling reason to seal the document. 20 OHL has not identified Absent any guidance, the court IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 10 days from the 21 date of this Order, OHL shall specifically identify the provisions 22 in the agreement which asserts constituted “sensitive business 23 information” and explain why that information is sensitive and 24 should be sealed or redacted from the public record. 25 Dated: October 8, 2014 26 27 28 2

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?