Cunningham v. Medtronic Inc. et al

Filing 198

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 168 MOTION TO SEAL. (This order terminates docket nos. 193 and 194 as moot). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LORENZO R. CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

MEDTRONIC INC., et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Case No. 14-cv-04814-HSG
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 168, 193, 194

12
Pending before the Court are Defendant Medtronic, Inc.’s (“Medtronic”) administrative

13
14

motions to (1) file under seal, see Dkt. No. 168; (2) withdraw its motion to file under seal, see Dkt.

15

No. 193; and (3) to retrieve exhibits lodged provisionally under seal or grant the earlier-filed

16

motion to seal, see Dkt. No. 194. The Court GRANTS the motion to seal.

17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

On August 24, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of the

19

claims against Medtronic, with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See

20

Dkt. No. 191 at 2. The dismissal with prejudice terminated as moot Medtronic’s then-pending

21

motion for summary judgment. See id.; see also Dkt. No. 165 (motion for summary judgment).

22

In conjunction with its motion for summary judgment, Medtronic had filed an administrative

23

motion to file certain supporting documents under seal. See Dkt. No. 168. Medtronic now seeks

24

to withdraw that administrative motion and to retrieve the exhibits, or, in the alternative, for the

25

Court to grant the motion to seal. See Dkt. Nos. 168, 193, 194.

26
27
28

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

1

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from

2

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

3

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in

4

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To

5

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a

6

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

7

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

8

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s
interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have
become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further
litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to
keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

17
certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
18
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5
19
supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a
20
21
22
23

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are
privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The
request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

24

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often

25

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal

26

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27

Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific

28
2

1

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

2

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

3

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will

4

not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation

5

omitted).

6

III.

DISCUSSION
Medtronic seeks to seal Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Declaration of Jonathan Caudell, see

7

Dkt. No. 166-4, and Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Declaration of Travis Donald, see Dkt. No. 166-5.

9

Because the documents sought to be sealed were attached to a dispositive motion, the Court

10

applies the “compelling reasons” standard. The Court finds that Medtronic has articulated

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

compelling reasons to seal these exhibits because they contain information about the “design,

12

specifications, manufacturing processes, and device testing protocols that constitute, contain, or

13

reveal confidential and proprietary information.” See Dkt. No. 168 at 2. These documents may

14

contain trade secrets and other information that would cause harm to Medtronic if released. See,

15

e.g., Opperman v. Path, No. 13-CV-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *6 (Mar. 17, 2017) (sealing

16

documents containing sensitive information about a product’s internal review process); Monster,

17

Inc. v. Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp., No. 12-CV-2488-YGR, 2013 WL 163774, at *1

18

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) (explaining that trade secrets are properly ordered sealed).

19

IV.

20
21
22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Medtronic’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 168. The Clerk is directed to

terminate Dkt. Nos. 193 and 194 as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/4/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3