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)

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