Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.

Filing 173

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (granting 127 140 and 149 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SHIRIN DELALAT,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, 149

NUTIVA, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00711-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal various documents

13
14
15
16

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, and 149.
I.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To

22

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a

23

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

24

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

25

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-

26

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

27

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have

28

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

1

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

2

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

3

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

4

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, however, are not subject to the strong

14

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often

15

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal

16

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific

18

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

19

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

20

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will

21

not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation

22

omitted).

23
24

II.

DISCUSSION
The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than

25

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the

26

“compelling reasons” standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing

27

portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and

28

financial information relating to the operations of Nutiva, and to employment and medical history
2

1

of the Named Plaintiffs. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,

2

2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto

3

Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard

4

Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial

5

information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). The parties have

6

identified portions of the unredacted versions of Motions and exhibits as containing confidential

7

business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling reasons to grant the motions to file

8

the below-indicated portions under seal.

9

The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Docket Number
Public/(Sealed)
127-3/(127-4)

13
14
15
16
17
18

127-5/(127-6)

19
20
21
22
23

Document

Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed Ruling (basis)

Exhibit 4 to the
Declaration of
William P. Cole in
Support of
Defendant’s
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification –
Expert Report Dr.
Kent D. Van Liere
Exhibit 5 to the
Declaration of
William P. Cole in
Support of
Defendant’s
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification –
Rebuttal Declaration
of Dr. Denise N.
Martin

Portions of: Page 16, n. 26; and
Page 17, n. 30.

24
25
26
27
28

164/(140-5)

Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion for
Class Certification

GRANTED

Portions of: Page 8, lines 3, 4
GRANTED
and 6 of ¶ 13; Page 11, line 4 of
¶ 18, Column (B) of Table 1;
Page 12, line 2 of ¶ 19, line 2 of
¶ 20; Page 16, line 3 and 4 from
the top of the page, line 3 of ¶
27(b); Page 17, lines 11-17 of ¶
27(b); Page 18, line 4 of ¶
27(c); Page 24, the dollar
figures in the vertical column of
Figure 1 and names of States at
the bottom of Figure 1; and
Page 25, the dollar figures at the
top of each bar and the names
of the bar categories on the
bottom of each bar, on Figure 2.
Pages 3:3-8 and 4:11
GRANTED

3

1

140-6/(140-7)

2
3
4

Entire document
sealed/(140-8)
140-6/(140-9)

Reply Declaration of
Jack Fitzgerald in
Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Reply Ex. 1

Paragraphs 4-6

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Reply Ex. 2

GRANTED

Reply Ex. 3

Pages 8:12-9:3, 14:21-15:13,
15:21-25, 16:4-17:15, 68:8-19,
70:2-16, and 88:1
Entire document

Reply Ex. 4

Entire document

GRANTED

Reply Ex. 5

Entire document

GRANTED

Reply Ex. 6
Reply Declaration of
Shirin Delalat in
Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class
Certification
Exhibit 1 to the
Declaration of Paul K.
Joseph in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition
to Nutiva’s Motion to
Strike the
Declarations of Dr.
Michael Dennis and
Mr. Colin Weir
Reply Declaration of
J. Michael Dennis,
Ph.D
Reply Declaration of
Colin B. Weir

Pages 126:23-127:19
Paragraphs 2, 5-6, and 12

GRANTED
GRANTED

Page 127:1-19

GRANTED

Footnotes 14-15 (on page 7)

GRANTED

Paragraphs 11, 14 (“average
price” and “average price/oz”
information), 19, and 44
Page 61:8-11

GRANTED

NUT340
Entire document
Entire document
Entire document
NUT343-344

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

5
6
7
8
9
10

Entire document
sealed/(140-10)
Entire document
sealed/(140-11)
Entire document
sealed/(140-12)
140-6/(140-13)
140-14/(140-15)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

140-20/(140-21)

14
15
16
17
18

140-16/(140-17)

19
20

140-18/(140-19)

21
22

140-22/(140-23)

23
24
25
26
27
28

140-24/(140-25)
140-26/(140-27)
140-28/(140-29)
140-30/(140-31)
140-32/(140-33)

Exhibit 1 Declaration
of Melanie Persinger
in Support of Motion
to Strike Rebuttal
Declarations of Dr.
Denise Martin and Dr.
Kent Van Liere
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 6
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 7
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 8
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex. 9
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex.

4

GRANTED

GRANTED

1
2

140-34/(140-35)
149-4/(149-5)

3
4

10
Fitzgerald Decl, Ex.
11
Supplemental
Declaration of Dr.
Denise N. Martin

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

III.

Entire document

GRANTED

Paragraph 10, second line;
GRANTED
paragraph 10(a), fourth and fifth
lines; paragraph 18(b), fifth and
sixth lines; paragraph 32, first
through fourth lines, and eight
and last line.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 127, 140, and 149. Pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are
granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions
accompanying the administrative motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/18/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5