Ashton Woods Holdings L.L.C. et al v. USG Corporation et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 72 RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2021)

Case 4:15-cv-01247-HSG Document 76 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ASHTON WOODS HOLDINGS L.L.C., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED
MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 72

10
11

Case No. 15-cv-01247-HSG

USG CORPORATION, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to file under seal portions of two of the three exhibits that

13
14

were the subject of Plaintiffs’ previous motion to seal. Dkt. No. 72. For the reasons articulated

15

below, the Court GRANTS 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).

28

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

Case 4:15-cv-01247-HSG Document 76 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

II.

DISCUSSION
On October 13, 2020, Defendants requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

the MDL Court’s summary judgment ruling on choice of law. Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiffs previously

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

filed an administrative motion to file documents under seal in connection with Defendants’ motion

12

for leave to move for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 61. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to file under

13

seal the entirety of the summary judgment briefs, Exhibits 1-3 to the Declaration of Diane

14

Doolittle. See Dkt. No. 61-4 (Ex. 1); Dkt. No. 61-5 (Ex. 2); Dkt. No. 61-6 (Ex. 3). The Court

15

denied Plaintiffs’ motion because Plaintiffs failed to narrowly tailor their requests to only cover

16

the portions of the exhibits that refer directly to confidential and proprietary business information.

17

Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiffs now file a renewed motion seeking to seal select portions of Defendant’s

18

Opening Summary Judgment Brief and Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief. Dkt. No. 72. Because

19

Plaintiffs move to file documents related to Defendants’ motion to reconsider the MDL court’s

20

summary judgment ruling, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard.

21

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have narrowly tailored their requests to only cover the

22

portions of the exhibits that refer directly to confidential and proprietary business information, or

23

sensitive personally identifiable information. As to Defendant’s Opening Summary Judgment

24

Brief, Plaintiffs move to seal a single image that “details the ways in which Plaintiffs . . .

25

purchased wallboard, through what entities, and where.” Id. at 4. The public release of this

26

information could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298

27

F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources

28

of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v.
2

Case 4:15-cv-01247-HSG Document 76 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 3

1

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). As to Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief, Plaintiffs

2

move to seal two phone numbers associated with Defendants’ employees. Id. The Court also

3

finds that compelling reasons exist to seal this potentially sensitive identifying information. See

4

Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 17-CV-03874-LHK,

5

2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (ordering sealing where documents contained

6

“personally identifiable information of third-party individuals, including” phone numbers).

7

III.

8
9

CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established compelling reasons to seal the

limited portions of the exhibits, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to file under seal is GRANTED. The
Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to file redacted versions of these documents on the public docket

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

within seven days of this order.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/8/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3