Morton & Bassett, LLC-V-Organic Spices Inc

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES ( 65 , 69 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MORTON & BASSETT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORGANIC SPICES, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.15-cv-01849-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 65, 69

Pending before the Court are two administrative motions, Dkt. Nos. 65, 69, to file under

12
13

seal certain documents relating to the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant and

14

Counterclaimant Organic Spices, Inc., Dkt. No. 66 (“Mot. for SJ”), and the opposition thereto filed

15

by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Morton & Bassett, LLC, Dkt. No. 70 (“SJ Opp.”). The

16

administrative motions to file under seal are unopposed. See Dkt. Nos. 65, 69. Although the

17

parties did not submit declarations pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the parties have

18

stipulated that the documents and exhibits listed in both administrative motions should be filed

19

under seal. See Dkt. Nos. 65-10, 69-2.
Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, the Court GRANTS IN

20
21

PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions to seal.

22

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

23

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

24

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

25

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

26

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

27

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

28

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

1

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

2

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

3

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79

4

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

5

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

6

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

7

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

8

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must

9

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial
records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

12

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal

13

quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

14
15

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

16

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request

17

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

18

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

19

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

20

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must

21

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at

22

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or

23

harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

24

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

25

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

26

II.

27
28

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the documents at issue

have more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at
2

1
2
3

1101. The Court rules as follows:
Motion
65

Document
Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 1

Ruling
GRANTED as to 36:12-24, 38:212, 39:19-25, 40, 41, 49-54, 55:925, 56-59, 60:1-13, 61:20-25, 6266, 67:1-20, 68:15-25, 69:1-6, 113,
114:1-5, 134:21-23, 135:12-25,
136, 147-148, 150-158

Reason
Confidential Business Information
(including Confidential Product
Development Information,
Manufacturer Information, and
Competition Evaluation)

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 43:24-25, 44:114, 66:4-21, 101, 251:4-10, 318:117

Not Confidential Information

Not Confidential Information

Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 3

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 248:19-25,
250:21-25, 252:6-12

Not Confidential Information

Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 4

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 54:10-21, 55:425, 56:1-3, 249:9-25, 250, 252
DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 250:3-9, 287-88

Not Confidential Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
DENIED

Not Confidential Information

DENIED

Not Confidential Information

GRANTED as to 30, 157:21-25,
158:1-14, 185-86, 211:3-6, 212:1022, 216:1-4

Confidential Business Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 70:6-11

Not Confidential Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED

Not Confidential Information

GRANTED as to 180:8-25, 181

Confidential Business Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof

Not Confidential Information

4
5
6
7

65

Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 2

8
9
10

65

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

65

13
14
15

65

Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 5

16
17
18
19

65
65
65

Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 6
Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 7
Mot. for SJ, Kanach Decl.,
Ex. 8

20
21
69

22

SJ Opp., Salvatore Decl.,
Ex. A

23
69

24
69

25
26

SJ Opp., Salvatore Decl.,
Ex. B
SJ Opp., Salvatore Decl.,
Ex. C

27
28
3

Confidential Business Information

Confidential Business Information

Confidential Business Information

Confidential Business Information

Not Confidential Information

Confidential Business Information

Confidential Business Information

1

69

SJ Opp., Salvatore Decl.,
Ex. D

2
3

GRANTED as to 221-26, 290:725, 291, 293, 294:1-5, 315:20-25,
316-17, 319:21-25, 320, 395-96,
428:20-25, 429-430, 431:1-18,
588:10-25, 589-90, 593:16-25,
594-597, Ex. 36, Exs. 42-45, Ex.
53, Ex. 56, Exs. 82-84

Confidential Business Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED as to 44:5-25, 45

Not Confidential Information

DENIED as to remaining portions
and pages thereof
GRANTED

Not Confidential Information

4
5
69

6

SJ Opp., Salvatore Decl.,
Ex. E

7
69

8
9
10

III.

SJ Opp., Campbell
Springfield Decl., Ex. A

Confidential Business Strategy

Confidential Business and Financial
Information

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

administrative motions to file under seal the specified documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule

12

79-5(f)(1), Salvatore Declaration Exhibit B and Campbell Springfield Declaration Exhibit A of

13

Plaintiff’s summary judgment opposition will remain under seal, and the public will have access

14

only to the redacted versions accompanying the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2),

15

Defendant must file the unredacted versions of Kanach Declaration Exhibits 6 and 7 within 7 days.

16

Finally, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), the parties must file the necessary revised

17

redacted versions of the remaining documents listed in the chart above within 7 days.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/31/2017

20
21
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4