Gutterglove, Inc. v. Lasell et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/18/20108 DENYING plaintiff's 49 motion to redact portions of defendants First Amended Answer. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

GUTTERGLOVE, INC., a California
Corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:17-cv-1372 WBS CKD

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

v.
WILLIAM LASELL, an individual;
AMERICAN DIE AND ROLLFORMING
INC., a California Corporation;
and ARTESIAN HOME PRODUCTS, a
California Corporation, doing
business as VALOR GUTTER GUARD,
Defendants.

20
21
22

----oo0oo---On March 21, 2018, this court rejected defendants’

23

Request to File the First Amended Answer and Counterclaims

24

(“First Amended Answer”) under Seal without prejudice to the

25

right of either party to submit a more tailored request, such as

26

redacting a portion of the First Amended Answer and

27

Counterclaims, which specifically states the basis for sealing or

28

redacting this document and why the harm of disclosing that
1

1

information outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.1

2

(Defs.’ Mot. to Seal (Docket No. 30); March 21 Order (Docket No.

3

33).)

4

“d[id] not give specific reasons why any particular information

5

in the [FAA] should be sealed.”

In denying the request, the court noted that defendants

6

(March 21 Order at 2.)

On May 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce the

7

Protective Order arguing that defendants threatened to violate

8

the Protective Order by publicly filing the First Amended Answer.

9

Plaintiff contends the First Amended Answer contains protected

10

material in contravention of the parties’ agreement in their

11

Protective Order.

12

(“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 2 (Docket No. 40).)

13

Protective Order, the Magistrate Judge directed the parties to

14

meet and confer to craft a more narrowly-tailored request to seal

15

portions of the First Amended Answer, but stated that if the

16

parties could not reach an agreement, then plaintiff could submit

17

a unilateral request to seal portions of the First Amended

18

Answer.

19

unable to reach an agreement on a new request to seal.

20

before the court is plaintiff’s request that the court redact

21

portions of paragraphs 28 and 81 of defendants’ First Amended

22

Answer.

23

(Pl.’s Mot. to Enforce Protective Order
As required by the

(May 31, 2018 Order (Docket No. 48).)

The parties were
Presently

(Docket No. 49.)
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

24

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

25

access.

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

26
27

1

Plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ request.

No. 32).

28
2

(Docket

1

(9th Cir. 2006).

2

plaintiff has not shown “good cause” let alone “compelling

3

reasons” to redact the First Amended Answer.

4

Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *2

5

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013); see also Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa

6

Diagnostics, Inc., No.

7

(N.D. Cal. June 23, 2014) (applying compelling reasons standard

8

to motion to seal portions of the first amended answer and

9

counterclaims).

10

Regardless of the standard to be applied,

See In re Google

14-cv-1921 SI, 2014 WL 12647739, at *1

Unlike the previous request to seal, plaintiff now

11

provides a reason for its request to redact two paragraphs of

12

defendants’ First Amended Answer.

13

paragraphs at issue contain private material unearthed during

14

discovery that constitutes “protected material” as defined by the

15

parties’ Protective Order.2

16

Decl. of Sara Gillette (“Gillette Decl.”) ¶ 5).

17

plaintiff argues that these paragraphs contain confidential

18

communication that includes valuable commercial, research and

19

development, and business practice information unavailable to the

20

general public. (Pl.’s Request to Seal at 5; Gillette Decl. ¶ 6).

21

Plaintiff further argues that the paragraphs contain plaintiff’s

22

intellectual property and designs, patent strategy, and an

Plaintiff argues that the two

(See Pl.’s Request to Seal at 5;
Specifically,

23
The Protective Order acknowledges that the action is
likely to involve information from which special protection from
public disclosure is warranted. (Protective Order (Docket No.
29).) Protected information consists of “confidential business
or financial information, information regarding confidential
business practices, or other confidential research, development,
or commercial information . . . information otherwise generally
unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or
otherwise protected from disclosure . . . .” (Id. at 2.)
3
2

24
25
26
27
28

1

analysis of competitive conduct in the gutter guard industry.

2

(Pl.’s Request to Seal at 5; Gillette Decl. ¶ 7).

3

Having reviewed the request, the court concludes that

4

neither of the two paragraphs at issue contain this type of

5

information.

6

“[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

7

examples or articulated reasoning,” which do not satisfy the

8

“good cause” standard let alone the “compelling reasons”

9

standard.

First, plaintiff’s arguments amount to no more than

See Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,

10

Inc., No. 16-cv-300 CJCR AOX, 2017 WL 2806897, at *5 (C.D. Cal.

11

Mar. 30, 2017) (quoting Beckman Indus. Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

12

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

13

filed is public information.

14

how the email in question—-which states that Robert Lenney found

15

a document containing drawings and contents of an invention in a

16

truck in July 2013--requires protection.

17

will deny plaintiff’s request that two paragraphs in the First

18

Amended Answer be redacted.

19

Second, the date a patent is

Furthermore, the court does not see

Accordingly, the court

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to

20

redact portions of defendant’s First Amended Answer (Docket No.

21

49) be, and the same hereby is DENIED.

22

Dated:

July 18, 2018

23
24
25
26
27
28
4