Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC

Filing 135

ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 122 , 127 , & 131 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (hsglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP RACIES,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 122, 127, 131

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are the parties’ motions to file under seal portions of their class

13
14

certification briefs and associated exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 122, 127, 131. No response to the motions

15

to seal was filed, and the time to do so has passed.

16

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives

18

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

19

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

20

(quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A]

21

strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178

22

(quotation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial

23

record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

24

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

25

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant

26

public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to

27

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court

28

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify

1

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at

2

1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that

3

the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

4

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

5
6

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

7

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

8

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5

9

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a
document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The

12

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

13

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

14

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

15

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”

16

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). The “good cause” standard requires

18

a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

19

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.

20

2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

21

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

22

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
Because the motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of

23
24

the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard in evaluating the

25

motions to seal.

26
27
28

II.

ANALYSIS
On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff Phillip Racies filed an administrative motion to file under

seal portions of his motion for class certification, as well as Exhibits A, F, and K to the declaration
2

1

of Patricia N. Syverson in support thereof. Dkt. No. 122. Plaintiff explained that Exhibits A and

2

F contain Defendant’s internal sales and marketing data and Exhibit K contains excerpts from

3

Plaintiff’s deposition. See Dkt. No. 122-1. The parties filed similar motions to seal portions of

4

their class certification briefs that relied on this same information. See Dkt. Nos. 127, 131. The

5

Court first addresses Defendant’s internal sales and marketing data and then Plaintiff’s deposition

6

excerpts.

7

A.

Plaintiff seeks to redact Exhibits A and F because they contain internal sales and marketing

8
9

Sales and Marketing Data

data that Defendant designated as “Confidential” under the protective order. See Dkt. No. 122-1
¶ 3. Designating party and Defendant Quincy Biosciences, LLC did not file a declaration in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, as required in this situation under the Local Rules. See Civ.

12

L.R. 79-5(e)(1) (“Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the

13

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that

14

all of the designated material is sealable.”). The Court has previously cautioned the parties to

15

strictly comply with Local Rule 79-5 when seeking to file documents under seal. See Dkt. No. 61.

16

The Court, therefore, does not find compelling reasons to seal these exhibits or the related portions

17

of the parties’ class certification motions.

18

B.

Deposition Transcript

19

Plaintiff also seeks to redact portions of Exhibit K, his deposition transcript, because the

20

parties have agreed that it should be designated “Confidential” under the protective order. Dkt.

21

No. 122-1 ¶ 5. Plaintiff clarifies in his related motion to seal portions of the reply brief that these

22

deposition excerpts “should remain confidential as [they] contain[] non-public personal

23

information that Plaintiff asserts could potentially adversely affect him in his professional career.”

24

Dkt. No. 131-1 ¶ 3; see also Dkt. No. 127-1 ¶ 3. The Court does not find support for this

25

characterization: the identified portions of the deposition reveal nothing more than that Plaintiff is

26

the named plaintiff in this action. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not carried his burden of

27

articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

28

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.
3

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the administrative motions to seal. Under Civil L.R. 79-

3

5(f), “the document[s] sought to be sealed will not be considered by the Court unless the

4

Submitting Party files an unredacted version of the document[s] within 7 days after the motion is

5

denied.”

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/22/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4