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)

Download PDF
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

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?