Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC

Filing 300

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(This order denies docket no. 263 ).(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2020)

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
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 263

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG

12
Defendant filed an administrative motion to file documents under seal in connection with

13
14

its brief concerning a dispute over whether Defendant may cross examine Plaintiff on his medical

15

condition. Dkt. No. 263. For the reasons articulated below, the Court DENIES the motion.

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

II.

DISCUSSION
Because Defendant moves to file documents related to a nondispositive motion, the Court

16

will apply the lower good cause standard. Defendant seeks to file under seal Exhibit A to the

17

Declaration of Joshua G. Simon in support of Defendant’s brief concerning Plaintiff’s objection,

18

and portions of its brief which purportedly reference the proposed sealing material. Dkt. No. 263,

19

263-1. The only proffered justification for sealing is that the information was designated as

20

“Highly Confidential” by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 263-1 ¶ 3. But a designation of confidentiality is not

21

sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is

22

merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish coverage under the stipulated

23

protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015

24

WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by

25

showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the

26

material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147,

27

2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, Defendant’s motion does not comply

28

with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, as the designating party for the materials,
2

1

Plaintiff did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), because he did not file a declaration

2

within four days of Defendant’s motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Further, the Court has reviewed Exhibit A and does not believe it contains confidential

3
4

information concerning Plaintiff’s medical condition, and therefore does not warrant sealing.

5

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit A and the unredacted version

6

of its brief.

7

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 263.

9

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

10

sealing has been denied within seven days of this order. Defendant may also file a new motion to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

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

12

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

13

granted will remain under seal.

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/20/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3