Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc. et al

Filing 242

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/10/19 GRANTING Request to Seal 238 . Request is GRANTED as to Exhibits P and T and DENIED as to Exhibits BB, YYY and ZZZ. Defendants may file Exhibits BB, YYY and ZZZ on the public docket.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

AEROJET ROCKETDYNE, INC. f/k/a
AEROJET- GENERAL CORPORATION,

11

Plaintiff,

12

GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

18
19

This court has received and reviewed defendants’ Notice of Unopposed Request
and Unopposed Request to Seal Documents filed on October 4, 2019 and has considered the
grounds stated therein in light of the applicable law, which defendants’ accurately summarize in
their request. The court grants the request in part and denies it in part as explained below.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER

v.

13

17

Case No. 2:17-cv-1515-KJM-AC

The court notes in the first instance that despite defendants’ representing that the
request complies with the court’s standing order, it does not comply in full. That order provides,
in pertinent part, “The court will only consider requests to seal or redact filed by the proponent of
sealing or redaction.” ECF 3-1 at 6. The court has imposed this requirement after observing in
prior cases that the party claiming confidentiality in the first instance is best positioned to make
the arguments supporting sealing or redaction, given the information to which only it is privy and
its stake in the matter.1 Given that the parties have met and conferred as required, and that

27
28

1

Specifically, the court began imposing this requirement following its observations of the
1

1

plaintiff delegated its task of supporting its claim of confidentiality to defendants, the court

2

proceeds to resolve the request on the record before it.

3

Exhibits P and T

4

Defendants have shown “compelling reasons” to seal Exhibits P and T to

5

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Bad Faith Claim, by pointing to the

6

content of the documents and applicable case law. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

7

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore, unless or until further order of the

8

court, Exhibits P and T shall be sealed with no access to the public, and access to these

9

documents as filed on the docket will be limited to the court, authorized court personnel and the

10

parties.

11

Exhibits BB, YYY and ZZZ

12

Defendants have not shown “compelling reasons” or “good cause” to seal Exhibits

13

BB, YYY or ZZZ. In their motion, defendants say simply that the documents contain trade

14

secrets, without any evidentiary support, and argue only that the exhibits “contain confidential

15

business strategy information and proprietary information that, according to Aerojet, should

16

remain confidential.” ECF No. 238 at 8:20-21. Defendants’ brief is wholly insufficient to

17

support sealing of these exhibits and so the request is denied. See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l

18

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

19

specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not satisfy the good cause standard.). If plaintiff

20

had made the request to seal, the court would return these exhibits – or return them virtually by

21

shredding -- to allow plaintiff to consider whether or not to proceed in relying on them, as

22

contemplated by the Local Rules. See L.R. 141(e)(1). But here, as noted, plaintiff delegated the

23

request to seal to defendants, and it is defendants who seek to rely on the documents in

24

connection with defendants’ summary judgment motion. Therefore, the court concludes plaintiff

25

has waived its claim of confidentiality, and defendants may proceed to file Exhibits BB, YYY

26
27
28

imbalance arising without such a rule in the “Moonlight Fire” case, in which one of plaintiff’s
attorneys served as counsel. See United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, 2:09-cv-2445 (E.D.
Cal.).
2

1

and ZZZ on the public docket in connection with their motion. See Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851

2

F.2d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1988) (failure to seek an order sealing record constitutes waiver of

3

confidentiality interests); Morton v. Rank Am., Inc., 812 F. Supp. 1062, 1075 (C.D. Cal. 1993)

4

(“A trade secret may only exist [] if reasonable steps were taken to maintain its secrecy.”) (citing

5

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(2)).

6

Defendants’ request to seal is GRATED as to Exhibits P and T and DENIED as to

7

Exhibits BB, YYY and ZZZ. Defendants may file Exhibits BB, YYY and ZZZ on the public

8

docket.

9
10
11
12

This order resolves ECF No. 238.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 10, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3