Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc. et al

Filing 187

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY REQUEST TO SEAL [DOCKET No. 183] SHOULD NOT BE DENIED. Additional declaration to be filed by WSI by July 24, 2015. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on July 21, 2015. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIEL VILLALPANDO, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-04137-JCS

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

EXEL DIRECT INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
REQUEST TO SEAL SHOULD NOT BE
DENIED
Docket No. 183

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to file under seal an unredacted supplemental
14
brief in support of their motion for summary judgment and excerpts of the deposition of Thomas
15

Moonan (“the Administrative Motion”). Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal is based on the

16
designation of the documents as Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets
17
under the Supplemental Stipulated Protective Order in this case. See Docket No. 182. In
18
compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Plaintiffs filed a declaration in support of the
19
Administrative Motion identifying the documents sought to be filed under seal and the party who
20
designated those documents as confidential. In addition, the designating party, Williams21

Sonoma, Inc. (“WSI”), has filed a declaration in support of the Administrative Motion. See

22
Moonan Decl., Docket No. 186.
23
The standard that is applied to determine whether documents are sealable depends on
24
whether they are offered in connection with a dispositive or a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana
25
v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons
26
are required to seal documents in connection with a dispositive motion, such as a motion for
27
summary judgment. Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
28

The Court cannot

1

determine from the Moonan Declaration that this standard has been met. Moonan references

2

“proprietary designs, processes compilations and methods that occur at every stage of the supply

3

chain.” Moonan Decl. ¶ 6. He also states that the testimony sought to be redacted contains

4

“highly confidential details that have significant competitive value” to WSI, id. ¶ 8, and that

5

competitors could “use this information to replicate WSI’s proprietary procedures without

6

spending the time or resources to independently develop them.” Id. ¶ 9. WSI has not, however,

7

identified any specific proprietary processes. Nor has it identified the particular information in the

8

Moonan deposition excerpt that would give competitors an unfair advantage; indeed, much of the

9

information in the deposition excerpt is general in nature and does not appear to be confidential.

10

Accordingly, WSI shall submit an additional declaration establishing that there is a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

compelling reason to seal the specific testimony it has designated as confidential and that the

12

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect only specific information that meets that high

13

standard. This additional declaration shall be filed by July 24, 2015. Failure to establish a

14

compelling reason by WSI will result in denial, either in whole or in part, of Plaintiffs’

15

Administrative Motion.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED

17
18

Dated: July 21, 2015

19
20
21

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2