Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes
Filing
163
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 141 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 158 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13
14
15
CENTEX HOMES and DOES 1 through
10 inclusive,
16
17
18
CENTEX HOMES,
19
20
Counterclaimant,
v.
21
22
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
23
Counterdefendant.
24
25
26
27
28
) Case No. 11-3638-SC
)
) ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
Now before the Court are two motions to seal filed in
2
connection with the parties' pending cross-motions for summary
3
judgment.
4
Motion to Seal ("MTS2")).
5
First Motion to Seal is DENIED and the Second Motion to Seal is
6
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
ECF No. 141 (First Motion to Seal ("MTS1")), 158 (Second
For the reasons set forth below, the
Federal courts have long recognized a common law right of
7
8
access to inspect various judicial documents.
9
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
See Nixon v. Warner
"This common law right
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial
11
documents which can be overcome only by showing sufficiently
12
important countervailing interests."
13
Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002).
14
consideration of this strong presumption, Civil Local Rule 79-5
15
provides: "A sealing order may issue only upon a request that
16
establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged
17
or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise protectable under the
18
law."
19
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, that
20
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
21
favoring disclosure . . . ."
22
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
23
citations and quotations omitted).
24
Phillips ex rel. Estates of
In
A party seeking to seal a document must "articulate[]
Kamakana v. City & County of
The First Motion to Seal pertains to Plaintiff's "Construction
25
Defect Review Guidelines 2008" (the "Guidelines").
MTS1 at 1.
26
Plaintiff argues that the Guidelines should be sealed because they
27
constitute a trade secret and because they are irrelevant to the
28
instant action.
ECF No. 157 ("Resp. to MTS1") at 3-5.
2
Neither
1
argument is particularly compelling.
2
Guidelines are "outdated and no longer in use."
3
Accordingly, it is unclear how Plaintiff's competitors could derive
4
any economic benefit from their use.
5
Guidelines are trade secrets, regardless of whether they are
6
outdated, because they were never disclosed to Plaintiff's
7
competitors.
8
ordinary secrets.
9
merely because the competitor does not have access to it.
Id. at 4.
Plaintiff concedes that the
Id. at 2.
Plaintiff argues that the
This argument conflates trade secrets with
Information does not have value to a competitor
Further,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff's argument that the Guidelines are irrelevant is belied
11
by Judge Ryu's January 10, 2013 Order requiring their production.
12
ECF No. 127.
Accordingly, the First Motion to Seal is DENIED.
The Second Motion to Seal pertains to the attorney invoices
13
14
and billing records from the firm of Newmeyer & Dillon ("Newmyer")
15
regarding its representation of Defendant in a number of underlying
16
actions, as well as copies of checks evidencing payments made on
17
these invoices by Plaintiff and other participating insurers.
18
at 3.
19
public record.
20
However, Defendant argues that the invoices and billing records
21
should be sealed because they are protected by the attorney-client
22
privilege and the work product doctrine.
23
Under Ninth Circuit authority, "attorney-client privilege embraces
24
attorney time, records and statements to the extent that they
25
reveal litigation strategy and the nature of the services
26
provided."
27
Cal. 1986).
28
parties' fee arrangement, costs and total fees paid do not
MTS2
Neither party objects to filing the check copies in the
MTS 2 at 3; ECF No. 161 ("Resp. to MTS2") at 2.
Resp. to MTS2 at 3-4.
Real v. Cont'l Group, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 211, 213 (N.D.
"However, simply the number of hours billed, the
3
1
2
constitute privileged information."
Id.
Here, portions the invoices and billing records at issue
3
reveal the nature of the services provided by Newmeyer and could
4
potentially reveal Defendant's litigation strategy in the
5
underlying actions.
6
significant amount of non-privileged information, including
7
Newmeyer's billing rates and the number of hours billed.
8
Accordingly, the Second Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part and
9
DENIED in part.
However, the records also include a
Defendant shall file unredacted versions of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
billing records under seal with the Court.
11
file redacted versions in the public record.
12
of the work performed by Newmeyer shall be redacted.
13
shall also file in the public record copies of the checks discussed
14
above.
15
Defendant shall also
Only the descriptions
Defendant
For the foregoing reasons, the First Motion to Strike (ECF No.
16
141) is DENIED, and the Second Motion to Strike (ECF No. 158) is
17
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED
20
21
22
Dated: February 26, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?