Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC

Filing 227

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL.(This order grants in part and denies in part docket no. 197 and denies docket nos. 203 , 208 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP RACIES,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 197, 203, 208

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG

12
13

The parties filed administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with

14

their motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 197, 203, 208. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES

15

IN PART the motions to file under seal, as described below.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

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

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

28

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

1

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

2

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

3

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records

4

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

5

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

6

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

8

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This

9

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

10

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

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

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

12

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

13

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

14
15
16
17
18
19

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the parties move to file documents related to their motions in limine, the Court

will apply the lower good cause standard.
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Motions in
Limine Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibits 1 and 2 (Dkt. No. 197)
Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Patricia N. Syverson

20

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2, and portions of his first and second

21

motions in limine which reference the proposed sealing material. Dkt. No. 197. Exhibits 1 and 2

22

contain Prevagen California sales information and have been designated by Defendant as

23

“Confidential.” Dkt. No. 197-1 ¶¶ 4–5. Defendant submitted its supporting Rule 79-5 declaration,

24

establishing that the sales information contains sensitive and confidential information “not known

25

to the public or competitors of Defendant regarding its approximate amounts of sales to third-party

26

retailers.” Dkt. No. 207 ¶ 8. According to Defendant, revealing this information would injure its

27

interests and standing in the marketplace. Id.

28

The Court finds that there is good cause to seal confidential sales information, because if
2

1

the information is published, this may harm Defendant’s competitive standing. See, e.g., FTC v.

2

Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting

3

motion to seal as information may “divulge[] terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations,

4

or trade secrets”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132,

5

at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). With respect to the first and second motions in limine and

6

Exhibit 1, these documents appear to have been narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material

7

(the sales information), as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. However, the Court does not find

8

that Exhibit 2 has been narrowly tailored to only seal the sales information. Exhibit 2 contains one

9

chart with sales information, but the remaining pages reflect communications between the parties

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

which do not expressly disclose the sealable information. See Dkt. No. 197-8.
The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to

12

seal Exhibits 1 and 2 and portions of Plaintiff’s first and second motions in limine.

13

B. Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 1 (Dkt. No. 203)

14

Defendant moves to file under seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joshua G. Simon in

15

Support of Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3. Dkt. No. 203. The only proffered justification

16

for sealing is that the information was designated as “Highly Confidential” by Plaintiff. Dkt. No.

17

203-1 ¶ 3. But a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is

18

sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of

19

confidentiality to establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health,

20

Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

21

31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject

22

to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be

23

confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D.

24

Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, Defendant’s motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-

25

5(d)(1)(A). In addition, as the designating party for the materials, Plaintiff did not comply with

26

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), because he did not file a declaration within four days of Defendant’s

27

motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

28

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit 1.
3

1

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 and Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 (Dkt. No. 208)

2

Plaintiff also asks the Court to file under seal portions of his opposition to Defendant’s

3

Motion in Limine No. 1 and Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 attached to the Declaration of Patricia N.

4

Syverson in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1. Dkt. No.

5

208. The only basis Plaintiff proffers for sealing is that Defendant designated the materials as

6

confidential. Dkt. No. 208-1 ¶¶ 3–6. Defendant did not submit its supporting Rule 79-5

7

declaration. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
As already discussed, a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a

8
9

document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
motion to seal.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

CONCLUSION

12

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s administrative

13

motion to file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibits 1 and

14

2, Dkt. No. 197; DENIES Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal Exhibit 1 to the

15

Declaration of Joshua G. Simon in Support of Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3, Dkt. No. 203;

16

and DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition

17

to Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 and Exhibits 1, 2, and 4, Dkt. No. 208.

18

The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the

19

proposed sealing has been denied within seven days of this order. The parties may also file new

20

motions to seal within seven days of this order according to the requirements discussed above.

21

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative

22

motions are granted will remain under seal.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/16/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
4