RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. v. Recycle Track Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER RE 46 , 52 , 57 , 61 , 64 MOTIONS TO SEAL. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. Motions denied, some with leave to amend by noon on 9/18/2024. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2024) Modified on 8/28/2024 (afm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ROADRUNNER RECYCLING, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

No. C 23-04804 WHA

RECYCLE TRACK SYSTEMS, INC. and
RECYCLESMART SOLUTIONS, INC.,

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

This order addresses all pending motions to seal and supporting declarations (Dkt.
Nos. 46, 47, 52, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65).

17

1.

18

There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is

THE LEGAL STANDARD.

19

entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their

21

attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only

22

upon a showing of “compelling reasons.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

23

1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 580 U.S. 815 (2016). Filings that are only tangentially

24

related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

25

Evidentiary motions, like motions in limine and Daubert motions, can correlate with the

26

merits. Id. at 1098–1100. Indeed, the “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial

27

records.” Id. at 1098 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir.

28

2010), cert. denied sub nom. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. v. Pintos, 562 U.S. 1134 (2011)).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Additionally, parties in this district must ensure their sealing motions meet basic

2

adequacy requirements. Above all, they must “narrowly tailor” requests “to seal only the

3

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). And they must list each document or passage to be

4

sealed together with its rationale for sealing. Ibid. For each listed, they must specifically state:

5

(1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that will result

6

should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.

7

Ibid. They must provide evidentiary support where necessary, such as by sworn declaration.

8

Ibid. And, for pleadings, parties must file both redacted and unredacted copies (or ensure

9

another party does), and include in the unredacted copies highlighting to show proposed

10

redactions. Id. at (d)–(e). Failure to follow the rules suggests a lack of cause or interest to

11

seal, and risks summary denial. See id. at (f)(6), (g)(2).

12

Redaction may be appropriate where publication “could result in infringement upon trade

13

secrets.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566

14

U.S. 986 (2012). So too where publishing “business information” might “harm a litigant’s

15

competitive standing,” particularly where the public has “minimal interest” in that information.

16

See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). And, in general, redaction

17

will be appropriate where publication would turn “court files [into] a vehicle for improper

18

purposes,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as “to gratify

19

private spite, promote public scandal, [or] circulate libelous statements,” ibid. But “vague

20

boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm” will not suffice to support

21

redaction. Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28,

22

2019) (citing Civil L.R. 79-5). Nor will mere “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order.”

23

Civil L.R. 79-5(c); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “A party seeking to seal a judicial

24

record [ultimately] bears the burden of overcoming th[e] strong presumption” of public access.

25

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The final determination is “left to the sound discretion of the

26

trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).

27
28
2

1

MOTION TO SEAL STEMMING FROM ROADRUNNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF
TRADE SECRETS.

2

RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. filed its identification of trade secrets (Dkt. Nos. 46, 46-4).

3

RoadRunner also filed seventy-two pages of exhibits (Dkt. No. 47). It moved to seal all (Dkt.

4

No. 46-1 ¶¶ 3–4). To substantiate these redactions, RoadRunner in one paragraph attested that

5

they contained trade secrets, and in a second attested that because they contained only trade

6

secrets they must be sealed in toto (ibid.). RoadRunner has since proposed narrower redactions

7

of other documents that it at first had sought to seal in entirety (infra). And the Court has since

8

rejected RoadRunner’s broadest trade secrets claims (Dkt. No. 71). Still, RoadRunner has not

9

proposed narrowed redactions as to its trade secrets identification.

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2.

12
13
14

RoadRunner’s initial, overbroad redactions as to these filings must be rejected. Passages
in the documents proposed to be sealed include:


marketing puffery, such as “RoadRunner is a pioneer in waste
and recycling metering technology” (Dkt. No. 46-4 at 2);



boilerplate assertions, such as “RoadRunner kept its
confidential and proprietary information secret from all third
parties in part by restricting access from all third parties” (id. at
4);



statements from legal treatises, such as “[A]s long as a
competitor would have to incur considerable expense to
recreate the combination, generally the combination will be
found to have independent economic value” (id. at 22 (quoting
1 MILGRIM ON TRADE SECRETS § 1.01 (2020)); and,



high-level descriptions of case contentions, including concepts
elsewhere disclosed, such as that the case concerns in part a
“smart camera apparatus” (cf. Tr. Feb. 29, 2024 at 14).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

And that is to say nothing of the purported trade secrets proposed for redaction, which the

22

Court has warned started out overbroad (Dkt. No. 43) and may still be due for sacking (Dkt.

23

No. 71). Where proposed redactions are facially overbroad, as here, they may be rejected

24

facially. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(6), (g)(2).

25

Nonetheless, RoadRunner will be given a renewed chance to propose redactions for its

26

trade secrets identification and exhibits. That is because the logic of the Court’s last

27

substantive order on RoadRunner’s trade secrets claims — that RoadRunner “has plausibly

28

pleaded at least some material qualifying for trade secret protection” that “discovery and
3

1

subsequent motion practice” might “par[e] down” (Dkt. No. 71) — applies equally to

2

RoadRunner’s sealing requests. The same logic also means that RoadRunner’s proposed

3

redactions must, if they are to survive, be narrowed significantly. Nearly nine months have

4

passed since RoadRunner’s initial trade secrets identification filings. Six months have passed

5

since the Court’s order stating that discovery should narrow the contentions. RoadRunner

6

should now have a firmer grasp of what secrets it purports to claim. And the public monitoring

7

the case must be given in fact what the public already enjoys in law: presumed access to all

8

information in the case, except for good or compelling cause otherwise.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Thus, RoadRunner’s administrative motion to seal (Dkt. No. 46) is DENIED WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

3.

(as further described infra Part 4).
MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM ROADRUNNER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

RoadRunner’s other pending sealing motions stem from its motion for leave to amend its
first amended complaint, specifically the opposition and reply.
A.

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND.

Recycle Track Systems, Inc. and RecycleSmart Solutions Inc. (“Systems-and-Solutions”)

17

opposed RoadRunner’s motion for leave to amend (Dkt. No. 52-2; Dkt. No. 53). At the same

18

time, they moved to consider whether RoadRunner’s material therein should be sealed (Dkt.

19

No. 52). RoadRunner at first filed a declaration to support sealing all (Dkt. No. 59). Now,

20

RoadRunner files a superseding declaration supporting only narrowed redactions (Dkt. No. 62

21

at 2 n.1; Dkt. No. 63). Nonetheless, Systems-and-Solutions oppose the motion to seal, arguing

22

that much of the material is publicly disclosed elsewhere, including in RoadRunner’s own

23

filings (Dkt. No. 64-1 at 3–4; Dkt. No. 65). Systems-and-Solutions propose redacting only a

24

lesser amount, which they outline in red boxes (see Dkt. No. 64-3).

25
26

RoadRunner’s narrowed redactions remain overbroad. They include:


blather, such as that RoadRunner “discussed with much detail
and fanfare [its] component selection in the Proposed SAC and
ITS” (Dkt. No. 63-1 at 10:13–10:14);



legal arguments, such as “RoadRunner did not cite to any

27
28

4

documents containing this alleged trade secret” (id. at 6:8);

1
2
3
4



quotations to other filings and documents that are public, such
as to the First Amended Complaint and a published article
(e.g., id. at 10:4–6; 23 nn.2–4), and



high-level descriptions of purported trade secrets that are core
to case contentions, clear from other filings, and do not
plausibly contain confidential business information (e.g., id. at
7:3–6).

5
6

Indeed, even Systems-and-Solutions’ proposed redactions (Dkt. No. 64-3) are overbroad.

7

Thus, this order considered rejecting all proposed redactions outright.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Nonetheless, because some of the proposed redactions quote the trade secrets
identification for which an amended motion to seal has been permitted (supra, Part 2), this

10

order likewise permits amended proposed redactions here, as provided below (Part 4). Let this

11

be fair warning: Unless further significantly narrowed, the redactions will be rejected in full.

12

RoadRunner’s proposed redactions submitted through its declaration (Dkt. Nos. 62, 63)

13

respecting the underlying motion to seal (Dkt. No. 52) are thus DENIED WITH LEAVE TO

14

AMEND by RoadRunner (infra Part 4).

15
B.

16
17

REPLY TO THE OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND.

RoadRunner replied to the opposition to the motion for leave to amend, and moved to

18

seal the entirety (Dkt. No. 57). Later, it filed a superseding motion proposing narrowed

19

redactions (Dkt. No. 61 at 3 n.1). Again, Systems-and-Solutions proposed their own view of

20

what should be redacted (see Dkt. No. 64-2).

21

The same guidance and result just discussed (Part 3(A)) apply equally well here.

22

RoadRunner’s initial motion to seal (Dkt. No. 57) is thus DENIED AS MOOT, and its

23

superseding motion to seal (Dkt. No. 61) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (infra Part 4).

24

4.

25

Should RoadRunner wish to amend its motions to seal, then BY SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 AT

26
27
28

LEAVE TO AMEND.

NOON it shall submit an omnibus administrative motion to seal, meaning it shall:
1. File a superseding, amended administrative motion to seal the
trade secrets identifications and its attached exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 46,
47), the opposition to the motion for leave to amend (Dkt. Nos. 52,
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

53), and/or the reply to the motion for leave to amend (Dkt. Nos.
57, 61); and,
2. On a passage-by-passage basis for each filing, propose what to
redact (if anything), the legitimate interest to be protected, the
injury that would result if not redacted, and why a still-narrower
portion of the passage, paragraph, or sentence cannot be redacted
to achieve the result; include for each listing citation to all docket
numbers at which the same excerpt appears, whether publicly or
sealed (e.g., across Dkt. Nos. 57, 61, 64, etc.); and,
3. Attach public/redacted and non-public/unredacted copies of
each filing, including of all exhibits; include on the nonpublic/unredacted copies new outlined boxes or other indications
showing the newly narrowed redactions on top of the previously
proposed redactions.
Systems-and-Solutions may oppose any such motion to seal that is filed. If so, it shall
include a sworn declaration to support its views, all filed BY SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 AT NOON.

11

Should RoadRunner not choose to amend its motions to seal by the above deadline, then

12

parties shall publish onto the public docket unredacted copies of all previously redacted filings

13

considered by this order, BY SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 AT NOON.

14
15

For avoidance of doubt, parties need not publish unredacted copies of prior filings (such
as for the motions denied as moot) except as above deadlines indicate or as later ordered.
CONCLUSION

16
17

RoadRunner’s superseded motion to seal (Dkt. No. 57) and Systems-and-Solutions’

18

motion to seal (Dkt. No. 64) are DENIED AS MOOT. The remaining motions to seal the trade

19

secrets identification (Dkt. Nos. 46, 47), to seal the opposition to the motion for leave to amend

20

(Dkt. No. 52; see also Dkt. Nos. 62, 63), and to seal the reply to that motion (Dkt. No. 61) are

21

DENIED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (supra, Part 4). Again, no re-filings are immediately

22

required (see Part 4).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: August 28, 2024.

26
ILLIAM AL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
6