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