The Gillette Company v. Pace Shave, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 38 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 39 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-mc-80045-JSC
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
PACE SHAVE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39

Defendant.

12
13

This dispute arises out of pending patent litigation in Delaware District Court brought by

14

The Gillette Company (“Gillette”) against Defendants Dorco Company, Ltd. (“Dorco”), Pace

15

Shave, Inc. (“Pace”) and Dollar Shave Club, Inc. (“DSC”) (collectively, “Defendants”). See The

16

Gillette Company v. Dollar Shave Club Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-01158 (D. Del.) (the

17

“Delaware Action”). On June 2, 2017, the Court denied Gillette’s motion to transfer, stayed

18

Defendants’ motion to quash the third party subpoenas for 60 days, and ordered a further hearing

19

on the motion to quash. The Court also ordered the submission of a joint discovery letter and re-

20

submittal of the parties’ motions to file under seal. (Dkt. No. 35.) Pending before the Court are

21

the parties’ renewed motions to file under seal. (Dkt. Nos. 38 and 39.) Having considered the

22

parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS both renewed motions to file under seal.

23
24

BACKGROUND
Non-parties Terry L. Witt (“Wit”) and Morgan W. Tovey (“Tovey”) (collectively,

25

“Movants”) moved to quash deposition subpoenas (the “Subpoenas”) served by Gillette in the

26

Delaware Action, or for a protective order barring any deposition of Movants. (Dtk. No. 10.)

27

Movants are trial co-counsel for Defendants in the Delaware Action. The Subpoenas seek facts

28

regarding two prior settlement agreements and related negotiations between Gillette, Dorco, and

1

Pace. Defendant Pace joined Movants’ motion to quash. (Dtk. No. 6.) Gillette moved to transfer

2

Movants’ motion to quash to Delaware. (Dtk. No. 24.) Movants, Pace, and Gillette all sought to

3

file certain documents under seal. (Dtk. Nos. 10, 16, 21, 27.)

4

On June 2, 2017, the Court denied Gillette’s motion to transfer, stayed Defendants’ motion

5

to quash for 60 days, ordered a further hearing on the motion to quash, a joint discovery letter, and

6

re-submittal of the parties’ motions to file under seal. (Dkt. No. 35.) The parties submitted their

7

renewed motions on June 7, 2017.

8

DISCUSSION

9

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “It is well-established that the fruits of pre-

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

trial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public. [Federal

12

Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption where ‘good

13

cause’ is shown.” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.

14

1999). Sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or

15

portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

16

under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). A party may meet this burden by showing that the

17

information sought to be withheld creates a risk of significant competitive injury and

18

particularized harm. See Phillips v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2006). A

19

party may also meet this burden by establishing that the information contains trade secrets that

20

create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm, see Apple, Inc. v. Psystar

21

Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted), or where disclosure of the

22

information would violate a party’s legitimate privacy interest that similarly leads to such

23

risk, see, e.g., Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, No. C08-2581 JF

24

(HRL), 2010 WL 3221859, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010). Whatever the grounds, a party must

25

“narrowly tailor” its request to sealable material only. Id.

26

Movants seek to seal portions of Movants’ motion to quash, the Eiseman declaration, the

27

Witt declaration, Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 18, 19 to the Eiseman declaration, Pace’s joinder,

28

Movants’ reply brief and the Eiseman reply declaration. (Dkt. No. 38-1.) Movants also seek to
2

1

seal Exhibits 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 20 to the Eiseman declaration in their entirety. (Id.) Movants

2

contend that the redacted information contains “specific terms found in confidential agreements

3

between the relevant parties and the negotiations thereto, and details of proceedings between the

4

relevant parties that are subject to confidentiality agreements.” (Id.) Exhibits 2 and 3 are

5

settlement agreements that Movants submit contain “sensitive business information and

6

confidential terms between the relevant parties.” (Id. at 3.) Movants state that the disclosure of

7

this competitively sensitive business information will harm Pace’s ability to conduct business. (Id.

8

at 8.)

9

Gillette seeks to seal portions of its opposition to Movants’ motion to quash, the DeJong
declaration, Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the DeJong declaration, and its reply brief to the motion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to transfer. Gillette also seeks to file exhibit 2, A and B to exhibit 3, and exhibits 10-16 in their

12

entirety under seal, which include a witness statement, two confidential settlement agreements,

13

and confidential correspondence related to the settlement negotiations. Gillette argues that these

14

materials extensively discuss or reflect the confidential agreements between the relevant parties.

15

Gillette believes their disclosure would harm its ability to conduct business.

16

After careful review of Movants’ and Gillette’s submitted documentation, this Court

17

agrees that the revised redacted material concerns sensitive business information regarding

18

settlement negotiations and agreements between the parties. As such, the Court finds good cause

19

to seal this sensitive information. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103.
CONCLUSION

20
21
22

For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS Movants’ and Gillette’s motions to
file under seal. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 38 and 39.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 25, 2017

26
27
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

28
3