Xu et al v. Yamanaka

Filing 47

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 31 Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Relating to Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

RONGXIANG XU AND MEBO
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 13-CV-3240 YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION OF
DEFENDANT TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES

SHINYA YAMANAKA,
Defendant.
Defendant Shinya Yamanaka (“Defendant”) has filed a motion to seal certain documents in

12

connection with his motion for attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 31.) Local Rule 79-5 of the Northern

13

District’s Civil Local Rules provides the Court may issue a sealing order upon “a request

14

establish[ing] that the document…is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled

15

to protection under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). The standard to be applied to a motion to

16

seal depends upon the nature of the proceeding in connection with which the documents are

17

offered. When documents are offered at trial or in connection with dispositive motions, the party

18

seeking to seal the record must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s

19
20
21
22
23
24

right to view public records and documents, including judicial records.

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors

Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g,
605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
(9th Cir.2006). However, a different standard applies to private documents submitted in connection
with non-dispositive motions, since such motions are often unrelated or only tangentially related to
the merits of the underlying claims. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. The Rule 26(c) “good

25

cause” standard applies to documents submitted in connection with non-dispositive motions. The
26

Court may seal such documents “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
27

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Pintos, 565 F.3d at 1116.
28

1

Here, Defendant seeks to seal the Declaration of Derek Smyth, Chief Financial Officer for

2

Defendant’s law firm, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP (“the Weil firm”) In Support of Defendant’s

3

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, including Exhibits A-E thereto. Defendant contends that these

4

documents contain highly sensitive and confidential information regarding the billing rates,

5

services, and business methods of the Weil firm. (See Declaration of Christopher J. Cox, ¶¶ 3-4.)

6

Defendant offers evidence to the effect that the explanation of the methods by which the Weil firm

7

determines its billing rates is exceedingly proprietary, and the Weil firm would be at a disadvantage

8

to competitors in the legal market by having that information made public. Id. Based upon that

9

showing, Defendant contends that good cause exists to file the document, including the exhibits

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

thereto, under seal to protect important, confidential information.
Defendant further contends that the request is narrowly tailored to seal only the material for
which good cause has been established. However, no redacted version of the declaration or
attachments has been offered.
Based upon the showing of good cause in the Cox Declaration, the Court finds that the
documents attached to the Smyth Declaration are properly sealed. However, Defendant has not
established good cause to seal the body of the Smyth Declaration itself. The Smyth Declaration

17

describes the efforts undertaken to evaluate the reasonableness of the Weil firm’s billing rates,
18

without revealing the confidential information compiled as a result of those efforts.
19

Consequently, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED as to Exhibits A-E of the Smyth Declaration,
20

and DENIED as to the Smyth Declaration itself. The body of the Smyth Declaration will not be
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

considered by the Court unless Defendant files in the public record those portions of the Smyth
Declaration as to which sealing is denied within seven (7) days from entry of this order. See N.D.
Cal. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 31.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 4, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2