Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.

Filing 128

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 118 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Limited Portions of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
CENTURY ALUMINUM CO., et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-02514-YGR

5
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
8

ORDER DENYING AGCS MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL LIMITED PORTIONS OF ITS
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendant.
9
10
On July 12, 2012, Defendant AGCS Marine Insurance Company filed an Administrative

11
12

Motion to File Under Seal Limited Portions of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

13

(“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 118.) Defendant seeks leave to file portions of exhibits that reference

14

“trade secret and confidential business information.”1 Id. at 1. The Exhibits consist of deposition

15

transcripts of various witnesses for Plaintiffs, including a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, and one third-

16

party witness. Defendant states that the “relevant deposition transcript excerpts and exhibits were

17

deemed confidential pursuant to a Stipulation and Protective Order signed by Magistrate Judge

18

Cousins” (“Protective Order”). Id. at 1.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, with respect to the three witnesses employed

19
20

by Plaintiffs, this Motion falls under Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), which addresses “Filing a Document

21

Designated Confidential by Another Party.” L.R. 79-5(d) states that a non-designating party

22

wishing to file a document designated confidential must file and serve an administrative motion

23

to seal and lodge the document or memorandum in accordance with the Local Rule. “Within 7

24

days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing

25

that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed

26

sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the designating party does

27
1

28

The documents sought to be sealed in the Motion will collectively be referred to as the
“Exhibits.”
[PROP.] ORDER RE MOT. FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing

2

will be made part of the public record.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). Defendant filed this Motion because

3

deposition transcripts of Plaintiffs’ witnesses were marked “Confidential” under Protective Order.

4

Plaintiffs, however, did not file a declaration establishing that the designated exhibits at issue in

5

the Motion are sealable, nor did counsel lodge and serve a narrowly-tailored proposed sealing

6

order or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).

7

In the Motion, Defendant states that courts have recognized that injury may result from

8

disclosure in litigation of trade secret and confidential business information, and that motions to

9

seal are the primary way that courts can ensure full disclosure of relevant information while

10

preserving parties’ legitimate expectation that confidential business information, proprietary

11

technology, and trade secrets will not be publicly disseminated. Motion at 1–2. No specific

12

argument is made as to each Exhibit or how the testimony contained therein constitutes a trade

13

secret or other confidential business information.

14

A motion to seal documents that are part of the judicial record is governed by the

15

“compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.

16

2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by

17

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

18

favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

19
20
21

1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant factors including the “public
interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result
in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade
secrets.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

22
Cir. 1995)). While the decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the trial court’s
23
24

discretion, the trial court must articulate its reasoning in deciding a motion to seal. Pintos, 605
F.3d at 679. Given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order must be

25

narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). “A stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate

26

documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Id.

27

(emphasis added).

28

The Court hereby DENIES this Motion because Plaintiffs have not complied with Civ. L.R.
-2-

1

79-5(d) and no party has established that the Exhibits are sealable, including that of the third-

2

party witness. Indeed, a cursory review of the Exhibits by the Court indicates that the documents

3

need not be sealed. Moreover, the parties do not seem to have fully met and conferred regarding

4

what portions actually need to be sealed and counsel has indicated that some portions may, at

5

some later time, be able to be filed publicly. See Dkt. No. 126. The Motion is thus not narrowly

6

tailored. Further, Plaintiffs’ time has passed to respond.

7

The Court’s Order is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to either party filing another administrative

8

motion to seal. However, the Court notes that given the sheer volume of the documents at issue

9

on the cross-motions for summary judgment and the fact that later-filed exhibits may be intended

10

to correspond to earlier-filed declarations, it will be the parties’ responsibility to ensure that, at

11

all times, the Court has two complete versions of all documents necessary to decide the motions.

12

It is further the parties’ responsibility to ensure that all documents are clearly-marked such that

13

the Court can easily determine where the documents should be placed in existing Chambers

14

binders. Tabs and updated indexes for the binders should be provided.

15

The Exhibits at issue in this Motion must be publicly-filed by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July

16

30, 2012, unless another motion to seal is filed that specifically addresses each Exhibit and why

17

such documents should be filed under seal, in their entirety or in part.

18

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 118.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: July 25, 2012

_______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-