Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyama Partners, LLC et al

Filing 297

ORDER denying without prejudice #287 Stipulation, filed by Capella-Mowry, LLC, Susanna Pau, Peter Pau d/b/a Sand Hill Property Company, Sand Hill Property Management Company, Toyama Partners, LLC, Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Peter Pau. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 09/09/2011. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

1
2
3

NOT FOR CITATION

4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

EUREKA DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. CV 10-0325 SI (NJV)

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
STIPULATED MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff,
v.

(Docket No. 287)

TOYAMA PARTNERS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15
The district court has referred the parties’ discovery motions and all future discovery matters

16
17

to this Court for determination. Doc. No. 202, 248. Plaintiff Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)

18

has filed a letter brief requesting an order compelling defendant Toyama Partners and other

19

defendants (“Defendants”) to produce documents pursuant to the crime-fraud exception to the

20

attorney-client privilege. Doc. No. 285. In support of its letter brief, Dollar Tree submitted the

21

Declaration of Jay D. Marinstein (Doc. No. 286), which attaches a document Defendants designated

22

as confidential pursuant to the terms of the district court’s Order on Confidentiality (Doc. No. 275).

23

The parties accordingly stipulated to filing under seal the portion of the Marinstein Declaration that

24

refers to the document and the document itself, and ask this Court to grant their stipulated motion to

25

seal.

26
27
28

Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s stipulated motion to seal.

1
2

DISCUSSION
A motion to seal documents that are not part of the judicial record, such as “private materials

3

unearthed during discovery,” is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which

4

“provid[es] that a trial court may grant a protective order ‘to protect a party or person from

5

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.’” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors

6

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

7

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)). As the Ninth Circuit explained, “[t]he relevant standard for

8

purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether ‘good cause exists to protect th[e] information from being

9

disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’”

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Id. (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

11

2002)). The good cause standard also applies to sealed documents attached to nondispositive

12

motions. Id. at 678-79 (explaining that documents attached to a summary judgment motion are not

13

governed by the good cause standard because summary judgment motions are dispositive). Here,

14

Plaintiff seeks to seal a document that is not part of the public record in connection with a non-

15

dispositive discovery motion. Thus, the good cause standard applies. While the decision to grant or

16

deny a motion to seal is within the trial court’s discretion, the trial court must articulate its reasoning

17

in deciding a motion to seal. Id. at 679.

18

Pursuant to the Order of Confidentiality in this case (Doc. No. 275), Plaintiff has filed a

19

stipulated motion to seal portions of the Marinstein Declaration, which it filed in support of its letter

20

brief requesting an order to compel the production of certain documents. See Doc. Nos. 285 & 286.

21

Judge Illston specified that documents marked confidential could be filed under seal only pursuant

22

to Civil Local Rule 79-5. See Doc. No. 275 at 15. This Rule provides that:

23

A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that
the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,
[hereinafter referred to as “sealable.”] The request must be narrowly
tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform
with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or (c). A stipulation, or a blanket
protective order that allows a party to designate documents as
sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under
seal.

24
25
26
27
28

2

1

Civil Local Rule 79-5 (emphasis added). Plaintiff seeks to seal a document that has been designated

2

as confidential by Defendants, but neither Plaintiff nor Defendants has demonstrated why the

3

document is privileged or protectable. See Doc. No. 287. This is insufficient. Moreover, the Court

4

has reviewed the document and from the document itself cannot discern an obvious basis for finding

5

the document is privileged or protectable. At this point, the Court finds that sealing is not

6

warranted. The parties may submit a supplemental declaration that, in compliance with Local Rule

7

79-5, demonstrates that sealing is warranted.

8
9

In conclusion, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s stipulated motion to seal
portions of the Marinstein Declaration.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: September 9, 2011
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

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