Dodson et al v. Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. et al
Filing
111
Discovery Order re: 102 MOTION TO RETAIN CONFIDENTIALITY filed by Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Tempur-Sealy International, Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/6/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
ALVIN TODD, et al.,
7
Case No. 13-cv-04984-JST (MEJ)
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER RE: MOTION TO RETAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY
v.
9
TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Re: Dkt. No. 102
Defendants.
12
INTRODUCTION
13
Pending before the Court is Defendant Tempur-Sealy International, Inc.’s (“Defendant”)
14
15
Motion to Retain Confidentiality, in which Defendant moves to retain the confidentiality of certain
16
documents produced in the course of litigation. Dkt. No. 102. Plaintiffs1 oppose the motion. Dkt.
17
No. 104. The Court has reviewed each of the disputed documents in camera. Having considered
18
the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the
19
following order.
BACKGROUND
20
21
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant arising out of its
22
marketing and sale of mattresses, pillows, and other bedding products containing TEMPUR®
23
material. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s representation of its Tempur products as
24
25
26
27
28
1
On August 29, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which named 24 class
representatives representing 11 states. Dkt. No. 63. Since that filing, several plaintiffs have been
voluntarily dismissed, and 18 plaintiffs representing 10 states remain. The remaining plaintiffs are
Alvin Todd, Robbie Simmons, Tina White, Keith Hawkins, Thomas Comiskey, Patricia Kaufman,
Johnny Martinez, Toni Kibbee, Alan Kaufman, Sara Stone, Jerry Kucharski, Julie Davidoff,
Ericka Anderson, Kurt Anderson, Melody Todd, Diane Kuckarski, Tracey Palmer, and Brian
Stone.
1
“formaldehyde free,” “free of harmful (volatile organic compounds) VOCs,” “allergen resistant,”
2
and “hypoallergenic” are false and misleading because “reliable testing of Tempur-pedic products
3
reveals that formaldehyde and other potentially harmful VOCs, that can trigger allergy and asthma
4
symptoms, are present in Tempur-pedic products and in the chemicals off-gassing from Tempur-
5
pedic products.” Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 11.
6
The Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order in this case on September 16, 2014. Dkt.
7
No. 68. The protective order allows the parties and non-parties to designate information or items
8
for protection by marking them as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
9
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. ¶¶ 2.2, 2.8. The protective order defines “CONFIDENTIAL”
information or items as “information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)” and highly
12
confidential-attorneys’ eyes only as information or items that are “extremely sensitive
13
‘Confidential Information or Items.’” Id. ¶¶ 2.2, 2.8. The scope of the protection is broad
14
including not only the protected material but also “(1) any information copied or extracted from
15
Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and
16
(3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal
17
Protected Material.” Id. ¶ 3. According to the protective order, “the protections conferred . . . do
18
not cover . . . (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a
19
Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a
20
result of publication not involving a violation of this Order . . . ; and (b) any information known to
21
the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure . . . .” Id. ¶ 3.
22
A party may challenge a confidentiality designation by providing written notice of each
23
challenged designation and describing the basis for each challenge. Id. ¶ 6.2. If the dispute
24
regarding the designation cannot be resolved informally, the Designating Party must file a motion
25
to retain confidentiality. Id. ¶¶ 6.2-6.3.
26
On January 2, 2015, Defendant produced approximately 83,581 pages with every page
27
designated for protection under the protective order. Adams Decl. ¶ 44, Dkt. No. 104-2. After
28
receipt of this production, on January 14, 2015 Plaintiffs initiated a challenge to Defendant’s
2
1
designation of 213 documents totaling 4,583 pages. Id. ¶ 46. Counsel for the parties met in
2
person to attempt to resolve the dispute informally on January 28, 2015, but were unable to reach a
3
resolution. Cerrone Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 102-4.
4
5
LEGAL STANDARD
“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court
6
order to the contrary, presumptively public.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors
7
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “[t]he
8
court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
9
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Information
the court may protect includes “trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). “A party asserting good cause bears the
12
burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm
13
will result” if a protective order is lifted. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
14
1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
15
When the confidentiality of information under a protective order is challenged, the court
16
must conduct a two-step analysis. “First, it must determine whether particularized harm will result
17
from disclosure of information to the public.” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
18
Ore., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). “Broad allegations of harm,
19
unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”
20
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Seattle Times Co.
21
v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)). Instead, the party seeking to maintain confidentiality must
22
“allege specific prejudice or harm.” Id. “Where a business is the party seeking protection, it will
23
have to show that disclosure would cause significant harm to its competitive and financial
24
position. That showing requires specific demonstrations of fact, supported where possible by
25
affidavits and concrete examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of harm.” Contratto v.
26
Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
27
28
“Second, if the court concludes that such harm will result from disclosure of the discovery
documents, then it must proceed to balance the public and private interests to decide whether
3
1
maintaining a protective order is necessary.” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 424.
2
In doing this balancing, the court must consider the following list of non-exhaustive factors: “(1)
3
whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the information is being sought
4
for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the information will
5
cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information
6
important to public health and safety; (5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will
7
promote fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is
8
a public entity or official; and (7) whether the case involves issues important to the public.” Id. at
9
424 n.5 (quoting Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995))..
DISCUSSION
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
A.
Whether Defendant Will Suffer Particularized Harm from Disclosure
12
1.
Research Documents
13
The designated materials at issue include documents marked as “Gallup Study Reports,”
14
which contain research performed on behalf of Defendant by Multi-sponsor Surveys, Inc. See
15
Appendix of Challenged Designations (“Appendix”) Docs. 1-8, Dkt. No. 102-1. These research
16
reports are related to information about prospective mattress buyers, current mattress owners, and
17
the consumer mattress market. Defendant submitted the Declaration of Kelly Faerber,
18
Defendant’s Director of Internal Audit, attesting to the commercially sensitive nature of the facts
19
and data in the designated documents. Faerber Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 9-10, Dkt. No. 103-1. Faerber
20
explains that the designated materials are for the guidance of company executives only and have
21
not been made available to the public. Id. ¶¶ 9-10. Faerber further explains that Defendant has
22
taken measures to prevent the public disclosure of these reports. Id. ¶¶ 2-6, 9-10.
23
Defendant argues that the information contained in the reports is highly sensitive as it is
24
part of its business strategy and marketing information, which if revealed to a competitor, would
25
put Defendant at a competitive disadvantage. Mot. at 3. Defendant maintains that disclosure
26
would create a substantial risk of serious harm, such as by providing competitors with access to
27
Defendant’s confidential research and a means to target their competing marketing strategies
28
based on any weaknesses or strengths revealed by the reports. Id.
4
Plaintiffs concede that the Gallup Study Reports could be considered confidential under
1
2
Rule 26(c)(1)(G). Opp’n at 11-12. However, they argue that there are significant differences
3
among the dates and content of some of these documents, and “certainly every page is not possibly
4
worthy of protection from disclosure.” Id. at 12.
Having reviewed the reports in camera, the Court finds that they are related to Defendant’s
5
6
confidential business strategy and marketing information. The Court notes that most of the
7
documents themselves are marked: “This report, the literary property therein and the common law
8
copyright thereto, are the exclusive property of Multi-sponsor Surveys, Inc. This report is a
9
privileged, confidential communication. The material herein is available to and is for the guidance
of your executives only and is not to be copied, quoted from, published or divulged to others.”
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
See Appendix Docs. 1, 3, and 5-8. Defendant has also shown the harm that could result from
12
disclosure, including the potential for competitors with access to the reports to target their
13
competing marketing strategies based on any weaknesses or strengths revealed therein. Defendant
14
specifically argues that “[d]eveloping a protocol for a market survey is no small task, and to
15
develop such a protocol costs money. Possession of market research can give a market participant
16
an advantage over competitors, but only if they can possess the information exclusively.” Reply at
17
7, Dkt. No. 105. The Court agrees that the value of Defendant’s market research—including both
18
the protocol and the results—could be significantly diminished if it was freely disclosed to the
19
public.
20
Thus, based on the information before it, the Court finds that Defendant has shown a
21
particularized harm that can result from disclosure of the challenged materials to the public—
22
namely, that competitors would be able to see Defendant’s strengths and weaknesses, and use its
23
business strategies to their own benefit or to Defendant’s detriment. See Muench Photography,
24
Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 2013 WL 4475900, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) (permitting a
25
party to retain confidentiality where the information at issue could reveal product development
26
efforts and business strategies to competitors, who could then use those strategies themselves).
27
The designated materials also include a document identified by Defendant as “Internal
28
Market Research.” Appendix Doc. 9. This document is entitled “2010 Tempur-Pedic Product
5
Descriptions” and contains general descriptions of Defendant’s products. Plaintiffs argue that the
2
information in this document was already provided to the public. Opp’n at 11 (citing Adams Decl.
3
¶ 65). They also argue that it fails to contain information that qualifies for protection under Rule
4
26(c). Id. Having reviewed the document in camera, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs and finds
5
that the Internal Market Research document does not contain trade secret or confidential
6
information; rather, it contains general descriptions of Defendant’s products. Defendant maintains
7
that it “is obvious from the content that the document was intended for internal use only, as each
8
description begins with a short statement of whether a particular model is ‘entry-level priced,’
9
‘mid-priced,’ ‘higher-priced,’ etc.” Reply at 8. However, Defendant’s pricing is available to the
10
general public, and the document contains no confidential information regarding how Defendant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
determines these prices. Further, Defendant concedes that the final public versions of documents
12
describing the products have been produced without restriction. Id. In short, Defendant has failed
13
to show that specific harm would result from de-designating a document that contains information
14
already available to the public. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to
15
show that the Internal Market Research document should be designated confidential. Defendant’s
16
Motion is therefore DENIED as to Appendix Doc. 9.
17
2.
Product Training Guides
18
Plaintiffs also challenge the designation of 50 of Defendant’s “Product Training Guides,”
19
which were attached to several internal employee emails. Appendix Docs. 10, 12, 14-16, 104-10,
20
119, 121-22, 131-47, 151-57, 160, 163, 174, 177, 186, 190, 201-02, 204, 207, and 211. According
21
to Faerber, the Product Training Guides are internal documents distributed to employees and
22
authorized distributors. Faerber Decl. ¶ 11. She explains that they are not meant for public
23
dissemination and marked “Employee Use Only.” Id. Faerber further explains that Defendant has
24
spent significant resources developing the brand, marketing, artwork and employee training
25
information contained in the guides, and they are provided to third-party retailers on the condition
26
that the retailers agree to hold them in confidence. Id. Defendant argues that public disclosure of
27
these documents would cause harm to it in that competitors could “free-ride on Defendant’s
28
investment of resources in developing the product training guides,” thus giving Defendant’s
6
1
2
competitors an unfair strategic advantage. Mot. at 3.
Plaintiffs argue that the Product Training Guides consist of information about Defendant
3
and its products, not trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial
4
information, which is required for protection. Opp’n at 6. They maintain that the “fact that
5
Defendants may have spent significant resources developing the guides does not change the
6
subject matter contained in the guides, which subject matter and contents is not worth of
7
protection from disclosure.” Id.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. First, the Court notes that Defendant has already
9
produced at least one version of the Product Training Guide without designating it as confidential.
10
Specifically, on October 9, 2014, Defendant produced 6,543 pages of documents, which included
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
documents bates-numbered TCL 1-6508. Adams Decl. ¶ 30. Included in the October 9
12
production was Defendant’s Summer 2009 Product Training Guide, marked at TCL 5821-5839,
13
which was not designated as confidential. Id., Ex. C. This document is very similar to the
14
challenged Product Training Guide documents marked as TPTG 33-51, TWC 3105-3123, and
15
TWC 3722-3757. See Appendix, Docs. 105, 155, and 160.
16
Second, Plaintiffs state that they had in their possession both the Winter 2010 Product
17
Training Guide and October 2012 Product Training Guide prior to their production by Defendant.
18
Adams Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, 15-16, Exs. A-B. They state that these documents have been in the public
19
domain for at least six months. Id. ¶¶ 9, 15. According to the protective order, “the protections
20
conferred . . . do not cover . . . (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of
21
disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a
22
Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order” or (b) was
23
“known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure.” Protective Order ¶ 3. Further, Rule 26
24
does not govern their use since Plaintiffs obtained these documents outside of discovery in this
25
litigation. Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1079-81 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover,
26
ten of the challenged product training guides are identical and/or similar to the Winter 2010
27
Product Training and October 2012 Product Training Guide. See Appendix, Docs. 10, 110, 136,
28
147, 151-153, 156, 186, and 188.
7
1
Defendant has not provided any authority for designating information as confidential when
2
it is available in the public domain. Defendant cites DVD Copy Control Ass’n Inc. v. Bunner, 116
3
Cal. App. 4th 241, 251 (2004), which holds that, with respect to trade secrets, “[p]ublication on
4
the Internet does not necessarily destroy the secret if the publication is sufficiently obscure or
5
transient or otherwise limited so that it does not become generally known to the relevant people,
6
i.e., potential competitors or other persons to whom the information would have some economic
7
value.” Defendant states that it has “actively policed the internet for publication of its confidential
8
information, and when product training guides have been posted wrongfully Defendant has made
9
reasonable efforts to take them down.” Hajjar Decl. ¶¶ 1-5, Dkt. No. 102-2. However, as of the
date of this Order, the brochure remains available on websites that sell Defendant’s and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
competitors’ products to the general public. See, e.g.,
12
http://www.sdmattress.com/media/wysiwyg/TempurPedic_Brochure.pdf (Winter 2010 Product
13
Training Guide); http://cantoni.com/images/tempur-pedic.pdf (October 2012 Product Training
14
Guide). Publication of this information has not been transient or otherwise limited; instead,
15
Defendant provides these documents to retailers, who then post them online for customers’ and the
16
general public’s use. Accordingly, because the information in the Product Training Guides is
17
already available to the public and competitors, Defendant has failed to show that any
18
particularized harm will result from disclosure of the information. The Court therefore DENIES
19
Defendant’s motion as to the Product Training Guides (Appendix Docs. 10, 12, 14-16, 104-10,
20
119, 121-22, 131-47, 151-57, 160, 163, 174, 177, 186, 190, 201-02, 204, 207, and 211).
21
3.
22
Finally, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant’s designation of (1) internal employee emails and
23
(2) attachments to internal employee emails.
a.
24
Internal Employee Emails
The following documents in the Appendix are marked as “Confidential Internal Employee
25
26
Internal Emails
Email”: 19,2 23-25, 27, 29-37, 41-44, 48-50, 59-68, 70-82, 86, 88-90, 92-95, 102-03, 111, 113,
27
2
28
Mistakenly identified in the Appendix as an attachment, Document 19 is an internal email
relating to marketing materials.
8
1
2
115, 161, 168, and 170.
In its Motion, Defendant maintains that these documents fall within the protection for
“confidential research, development, or commercial information” covered by the protective order.
4
Mot. at 5. Because Defendant sells products that come in close physical contact with consumers,
5
testing is an essential element of the business. Id. Defendant argues that information regarding its
6
research, testing, product development, market studies, and business strategy would be highly
7
valuable to Defendant’s competitors, who would be able to use that information to advance their
8
own research, testing, product development, market studies, and business strategy. Id. Defendant
9
further argues that access to such documents would permit competitors to identify the strengths
10
and weaknesses in Defendant’s products, giving them an unfair advantage in marketing and the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
ability gain insight into Defendant’s confidential business strategies. Id.
12
Defendant notes that many of the challenged emails relate to discussions regarding
13
Defendant’s marketing strategies, including their marketing plans, product descriptions, and
14
advertisements. It contends that marketing strategies “are among the most closely guarded secrets
15
in any competitive industry, and the market for mattresses and pillows is no exception.” Id. at 6.
16
Defendant argues that disclosure of these documents would reveal the marketing strategies that it
17
determined to be effective, and would give competitors an unfair advantage in forming their own
18
strategies. Id.
19
In response, Plaintiffs argue that “[j]ust because an email may be tangentially connected to
20
research, testing and/or any of these other categories, in and of itself, would not qualify these
21
documents as Confidential.” Opp’n at 8. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant makes only
22
generalizations about the harm that would result from disclosure, yet Plaintiffs are unable “to
23
identify any challenged email that not only contains confidential material, but for which disclosure
24
would result in prejudice or harm to the Defendants.” Id. at 9.
25
Having reviewed the documents in camera, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to
26
meet its burden of showing the specific prejudice of harm that will result from disclosure of each
27
email. As a preliminary matter, many of the emails contain no text at all, and the subject lines
28
contain generalized terms such as “Direct Response Weekly Mattress Returns,” “Odor Returns
9
1
and Exchanges by Month 2009,” and “Accepted: Tempur Allergen Results,” with nothing more.
2
See Appendix Docs. 23-25, 29, 31, 33-35, 42, 44, 49-50, 60-61, 63, 65, 67-68, 71, 74, 76-77, 79-
3
82, 90, and 93. Defendant admits: “The fact that Defendants track information regarding returns is
4
not secret.” Reply at 3. However, because these pages include the names of the senders and
5
recipients, Defendant argues that “[d]isclosure of this information could lead to harassment of
6
Defendants’ employees. Or, if third parties contact those employees for information regarding
7
returns, Defendants’ ability to direct its public communications through the proper channels will
8
be compromised.” Id. Defendant makes this blanket argument with no legal support and without
9
specific demonstrations of fact or concrete examples. Further, even if the emails contain any
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
information identifying specific customers, Defendant may redact it.
As to the remaining emails, they contain only generalized entries such as “Odor Log –
12
Daily Summary” or brief communications among employees and/or customers. See Appendix
13
Docs. 27, 30, 32, 36-37, 41, 43, 48, 59, 62, 64, 66, 70, 72-73, 75, 78, 86, 88-89, 92, 94-95, 102-03,
14
111, 113, 115, 161, 168, and 170. Nowhere does Defendant identify any specific secret or
15
otherwise show the specific harm that will result from disclosure of any of the documents. See
16
Contratto, 227 F.R.D. at 309; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. Defendant’s broad allegations of harm with
17
respect to either the documents as a whole, or categories of documents, do not satisfy the standard
18
set forth in Foltz. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130; Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476. Again, if any of the
19
emails contain information identifying specific customers, Defendant may redact it. Accordingly,
20
Defendant’s Motion is also DENIED as to Appendix Docs. 19, 23-25, 27, 29-37, 41-44, 48-50,
21
59-68, 70-82, 86, 88-90, 92-95, 102-03, 111, 113, 115, 161, 168, and 170.
22
23
b.
Attachments
The following documents in the Appendix are marked as “Attachment to Confidential
24
Email”: 11, 13, 17-18, 20-22, 39-40, 45, 69, 83-85, 87, 91, 96-101, 112, 114, 116-18, 120, 123-30,
25
148-50, 158-59, 162, 164-67, 169, 171-73, 175-76, 178-85, 187-89, 191-200, 203, 205-06, 208-10,
26
and 212-13. In its Reply, Defendant identifies six documents that it mistakenly designated as
27
confidential: Docs. 40, 45, 69, 100-01, and 165. Reply at 4 n.3. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion
28
is DENIED as to these documents.
10
1
As to the remaining documents, Defendant notes that public versions of many of the
2
attachments at issue have been previously produced independently of the emails, without
3
restriction, but maintains that nonpublic drafts of these documents were properly designated as
4
confidential. Mot. at 4-5. Defendant argues that publication of unfinished drafts could lead to
5
consumer confusion. Reply at 5. Defendant further argues that if competitors are given the
6
opportunity to analyze early drafts of marketing materials in comparison with published versions,
7
they could identify language that Defendant has determined to be more or less effective, and could
8
adjust their own marketing materials accordingly. Id.
9
Upon review of these documents, the Court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to
show particularized harm that may result from their disclosure. The documents are largely draft
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
versions of Product Training Guides and other materials that contain the same or similar
12
information that has been made available for public viewing. As noted above, Defendant’s broad
13
allegations of harm with respect to either the documents as a whole, or categories of documents,
14
do not satisfy its burden to show that disclosure should be prevented. “[C]ourts have consistently
15
granted protective orders that prevent disclosure of many types of information, such as letters
16
protected under attorney-client privilege which revealed the weaknesses in a party’s position,”
17
“medical and psychiatric records,” “federal and grand jury secrecy provisions,” and “confidential
18
settlement agreements.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1212 (citations omitted). By contrast, courts have
19
held that documents similar to those sought to be protected in this case were not subject to
20
protection under Rule 26(c). See, e.g., Contratto, 227 F.R.D. at 310 (holding that defendant had
21
not established that internal memoranda regarding its product, including statistical information and
22
assessments of the consequences of the problems complainants had faced, was not protectable);
23
Verizon Cal., Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, 214 F.R.D. 583, 586 (C.D. Cal. 2003)
24
(holding that defendants had not established that three memoranda from counsel to the company
25
and a letter regarding an investigation of certain patents were protectable under Rule 26(c));
26
Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 137 F.R.D. 372, 395-96 (D. Utah 1991) (holding that defendant drug
27
company failed to establish good cause for maintaining confidential designation of drug
28
experience reports, internal memoranda regarding adverse reactions, a letter from a third party,
11
1
and other documents related to the drug Halcion).
2
Defendant’s general allegations of harm do not meet the Rule 26(c) standard, and as a
3
result, Defendant has not established good cause to uphold the confidential designation of the
4
documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130; see also Medtronic Vascular, Inc. v. Abbott
5
Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 4169628, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2007) (“Plaintiff’s
6
general assertion that disclosure of business communications would chill business relations is not
7
a sufficient allegation of specific harm. This general blanket argument would apply to all non-
8
public communications. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any specific harm will ensue from
9
disclosure of the documents at issue.”).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to Appendix Docs. 11, 13, 17-18, 21-22,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
39, 83-85, 87, 91, 96-99, 112, 114, 116-18, 120, 123-30, 148-50, 158-59,162, 164, 166-67, 169,
12
171-73, 175-76, 178-85, 187-89, 191-200, 203, 205-06, 208-10, and 212-13.
13
4.
Summary
14
Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its burden as
15
to the following documents: (1) Internal Market Research document (Appendix Doc. 9); (2)
16
Product Training Guides (Docs. 10, 12, 14-16, 104-10, 119, 121-22, 131-47, 151-57, 160, 163,
17
174, 177, 186, 190, 201-02, 204, 207, and 211); and (3) Internal Emails/Attachments (Docs. 11,
18
13, 17-19, 21-25, 27, 29-37, 39-45, 48-50, 59-103, 111-18, 120, 123-30, 148-50, 158-59,161-62,
19
164-67, 168-73, 175-76, 178-85, 187-89, 191-200, 203, 205-06, 208-10, and 212-13).
20
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to those documents, although Defendant may
21
redact any information about specific customers.
However, Defendant has met its burden as to the Gallup Study Reports (Docs. 1-8).
22
23
Accordingly, the Court next considers whether the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by
24
Defendant’s private interest in confidentiality.
25
B.
26
Public Interest In Disclosure vs. Defendant’s Confidentiality Interest
As the Ninth Circuit has instructed, the Court must look to the seven factors listed in
27
Glenmede Trust to balance the public and private interests in deciding whether maintaining a
28
protective order is necessary. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 424. Having already
12
1
discussed the first factor (privacy) above, the Court will address the other relevant Glenmede Trust
2
factors.
3
Factor 2 requires consideration of “whether the information is being sought for a
4
legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose.” While Plaintiffs’ brief argues extensively about
5
whether Defendant has good cause to maintain confidentiality, nowhere have they identified a
6
legitimate purpose for disclosing the challenged materials other than the public’s right to know.
7
The Ninth Circuit has said that “a litigant is not entitled to the court’s protection” from “additional
8
liability and litigation” due to the disclosure of confidential information. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137.
9
But Defendant has met its burden to show that the reports should remain confidential at this time.
The Court is unaware of any legitimate purpose for disclosing to the public the “confidential
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
research, development, [and] commercial information” of a company before that information
12
becomes material to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The relevant question under this
13
factor is whether there is a legitimate purpose for disclosing the information now. Plaintiffs did
14
not answer that question. Until the challenged materials are proffered on an issue relevant to
15
Defendant’s liability or some other relevant issue in this litigation, Plaintiffs’ desire for disclosure
16
is, at best, premature.
17
Factors 4 and 7 require consideration of whether confidentiality is being sought over
18
information important to public health and safety, and whether the case involves issues important
19
to the public, respectively. As noted above, this case involves allegations that Defendant’s
20
representation of its Tempur products as “formaldehyde free,” “free of harmful (volatile organic
21
compounds) VOCs,” “allergen resistant,” and “hypoallergenic” are false and misleading. Sec.
22
Am. Compl. ¶ 11. Although these allegations involve matters related to public health and safety,
23
the reports do not address any such issues. Plaintiffs have not even alleged that the challenged
24
reports are material to their case. If there was a relevant public interest in the challenged
25
materials, “the mere allegation of misconduct in the discovery documents . . . without more, does
26
not create a public interest sufficiently large enough to outweigh [ ] private interests in
27
confidentiality.” Id. at 427 (noting that there has been “no judicial determination” regarding the
28
challenged materials).
13
1
The Court also finds that Factor 5—whether the sharing of information among litigants
2
will promote fairness and efficiency—does not weigh in favor of disclosure since Plaintiffs
3
already have access to the information.
4
Having weighed the relevant Glenmede Trust factors, the Court finds that the public
5
interest in disclosure does not outweigh Defendant’s private interest in maintaining the
6
confidentiality of the challenged reports. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED as to
7
Appendix Docs. 1-8.
CONCLUSION
8
Based on the analysis above, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause for
10
maintaining the confidentiality of the Gallup Study Reports, as particularized harm may result
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
from disclosure of information to the public, and the public interest in disclosure of the challenged
12
materials does not overcome Defendant’s private interest in maintaining their confidentiality.
13
Accordingly, the Motion to Retain Confidentiality is GRANTED as to Appendix Docs. 1-8.
14
However, Defendant has failed to meet its burden as to the remaining documents.
15
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as to: (1) the Internal Market Research document
16
(Appendix Doc. 9); (2) Product Training Guides (Docs. 10, 12, 14-16, 104-10, 119, 121-22, 131-
17
47, 151-57, 160, 163, 174, 177, 186, 190, 201-02, 204, 207, and 211); and (3) Internal
18
Emails/Attachments (Docs. 11, 13, 17-25, 27, 29-37, 39-45, 48-50, 59-103, 111-18, 120, 123-30,
19
148-50, 158-59,161-62, 164-67, 168-73, 175-76, 178-85, 187-89, 191-200, 203, 205-06, 208-10,
20
and 212-13). Defendant may redact any information about specific customers.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
Dated: March 6, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28
14
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?