Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Denying 58 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-00941-HSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 58

v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE
INC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On April 17, 2015, Defendant Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. filed an administrative

14

motion to file under seal exhibit 1 to the declaration of William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. in support of

15

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (“Exhibit”). Dkt. 58. The time to file an opposition to the motion

16

to seal has passed.

17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives

19

from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

20

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

21

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in

22

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

23

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

24

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record

25

related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

26

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

27

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.”

28

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general,

1

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

2

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’

3

such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

4

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact

5

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

6

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

8

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

9

certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

10

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file

12

a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof,

13

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .

14

The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

15

5(b).

16

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

17

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

18

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”

19

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

20

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”

21

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

22

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

23

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad

24

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not

25

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

26

Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig.,

27

460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court applies the “compelling reasons”

28

standard to Defendant’s request to redact the Exhibit in its entirety.
2

1
2

II.

DISCUSSION
In its motion to seal, Defendant summarily states that “[t]he Exhibit contains confidential

3

and proprietary trade secrets of [Defendant].” Dkt. 58 at 2. In the attached declaration, William F.

4

Cavanaugh, Jr. similarly concludes that the Exhibit “is sealable as it contains and refers to

5

confidential and proprietary trade secrets of [Defendant].” Dkt. 58-1 at ¶ 3. Defendant seeks to

6

redact the entirety of the Exhibit.

7

Defendant has not carried its burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by

8

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

9

favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Furthermore, the proposed redaction does not
appear “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

The Court therefore DENIES the motion. Defendant may file an amended motion to seal that

12

comports with the above-described requirements. If it does not, the Court will not consider the

13

Exhibit unless an unredacted version is filed within seven days of this Order.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3