Dell Inc. et al v. LG Chem, LTD et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying without Prejudice 3 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case No.: 15-CV-02987

10

This Order Relates to:

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Master File No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR

DELL INC., et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,
LG CHEM, LTD, et al.,
Defendants.

13

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

14
15

Plaintiff has moved the Court for an Order sealing various portions of its Complaint. (Dkt.

16

No. 3.) While the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed the appropriate standard to apply in

17

considering a request to seal portions of a complaint, the Court agrees with others in this District

18

that have applied the “compelling reasons” standard. See Delfino Green & Green v. Workers

19

Compansation Solutions, LLC, No. 15-CV-02302-HSG, 2015 WL 4235356, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July

20

13, 2015); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. 06-CV-06110-SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3

21

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008); In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL

22

5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the

23

standard—good cause or compelling reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but this

24

Court and other courts have held that the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint

25

is the foundation of a lawsuit.”). Under that standard, a “party seeking to seal judicial records must

26

show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general

27

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and

28

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant

1

factors including the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure

2

of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or

3

infringement upon trade secrets.” Id. at 679 n.6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430,

4

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). While the decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the trial

5

court’s discretion, the trial court must articulate its reasoning in deciding a motion to seal. Id. at

6

679. Given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order must be narrowly

7

tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5 (a).

8
9

Plaintiffs seek to seal four of their six causes of action—namely those asserting breach of
contract—including the identities of the defendant(s) against whom those claims are asserted. The
logical effect of plaintiffs’ request would be to seal almost the entirety of their case, including all

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proceedings related thereto. Plaintiffs have provided insufficient justification for sealing the

12

identities of the defendant(s) or the entirety of the purported “highly confidential” contract terms at

13

issue, particularly where doing so would necessarily result in almost this entire case being tried

14

outside of the public’s view. The motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiffs

15

filing of a renewed request within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. If plaintiffs do not file a

16

renewed request, they shall file an un-redacted version of the Complaint on the public docket by

17

that same deadline.

18

This Order terminates Docket Number 3.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: August 27, 2015

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2