Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Filing 134

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (granting 91 and 98 and granting in part and denying in part 94 and 103 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 91, 94, 98, 103

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02200-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. 91, 94, 98, and 103.
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 Defendant. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
2

1

Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency

2

Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex

3

Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8,

4

2014) (holding sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be filed

5

under seal). The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of briefs and exhibits

6

as containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling reasons to

7

grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal.
For other documents listed below, the parties have failed to narrowly tailor the redactions

8
9

to Defendant’s confidential business information.1
The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Docket Number
Public/(Sealed)
Entire document
sealed /(91-2)

14
15
16
17
18
19

Entire document
sealed/(91-3)
Entire document
sealed /(91-4)
No Public Version
Filed/(94-4)

20
21
22
23
24
25

Document

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

MSJ, Murrin Decl.
Ex. B (pricing
information)
MSJ, Murrin Decl.
Ex. C (pricing
information)
MSJ, Murrin Decl.
Ex. D (pricing
information)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

5:18, not including “Ex. 32.”;
6:10, not including “question”;
6:11, not including “Ex. 34, at
CMG/7184-“; 6:12, not
including “003795. The reason
Chipotle asked this question
was”; 6:13; 6:16, not including
“announcement,’ Chipotle
sought information”; 6:17, not
including “Ex. 35; Chipotle
Dep. at”; 6:18, not including
“121:13-17, 126:1-127:21.”;
6:19; 6:20, not including “Ex.

GRANTED

26
27
28

A number of Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions indicate contingency upon Chipotle filing a
declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. As evidenced in the chart, the
Court DENIES the sealing of documents relating to Chipotle CBI for which neither party has
provided support.
3
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No Public Version
Filed/(94-6)

Declaration of
Laurence D. King in
Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class
Certificaiton

94-7/(94-8)

Exhibit 4, Excerpts
from Murrin Depo.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

35 at CMG/7184-001183;
Chipotle Dep. at 138:24139:10.”; 6:21; 6:22, not
including “See Ex. 35 at
CMG/7184-001186; Chipotle
Dep. at 127:17-21.”; 6:25, not
including “Brand Strategy,
developed”; 6:26, not including
“Chipotle”; 6:28-7:1; 7:4, not
including “Id. And, when
Chipotle asked consumers”;
7:5; 7:6, not including “Ex. 36
at CMG/7184-004141; Chipotle
Dep. at 107:12-109:23
(clarifying the question at”;
7:10, not including “materially
affected consumer interest in its
restaurants. Specifically,
Chipotle reviewed its”; 7:11,
not including “Ex. 39 at
CMG_7184-009603.” 7:12, not
including “And,” and “Id.
Indeed, Chipotle’s”; 7:13, not
including “marketing” and “id.
at CMG_7184- 009605,”; 7:14,
not including “Id. at
CMG_7184-009606. And,
importantly, as”; 7:15-7:16;
7:17, not including “Id. at
CMG_7184-009612 (emphasis
added).”
7:5, not including “document
GRANTED
entitled” and “dated July 10,
2015, produced by Chipotle”;
7:10, not including “document
entitled” and “dated October 13,
2015, produced by”; 7:15, not
including “document entitled”
and “dated January 12, 2016,
produced by”; 7:20, not
including “first of which is
from”, “to”, and “Joshua Brau”;
7:21, not including “dated June
22, 2015, with the subject line”
and “produced by”
86:7-87:2; 87:23-88:25; 99:16- GRANTED
104:2; 106:22-108:9; 109:1722; 110:12-25; 112:9-23; 122:54

No Public Version
Filed/(94-10)

Ex. 7, Email

12; 122:17-124:4; 124:16-22;
125:1-127:21
Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-12)

Ex. 8, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-14)

Ex. 9, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-16)

Ex. 10, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-18)

Ex. 11, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-20)

Ex. 12, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-22)

Ex. 13, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-24)

Ex. 23, Non-GMO
Project Standard

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-26)

Ex. 24, GMO FAQs

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-28)

Ex. 25, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-30)

Ex. 26, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-32)

Ex. 29, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-34)

Ex. 32, Email

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-36)

Ex. 33, Email

Entire document

Entire document
sealed/(94-38)
Entire document
sealed/(94-40)

Ex. 34, Survey

Entire document

DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
GRANTED

Ex. 35, Survey

Entire document

GRANTED

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

1
2
3
4
5
6

Entire document
sealed/(94-42)
Entire document
sealed/(94-44)
Entire document
sealed/(94-46)
No Public Version
Filed/(94-50)

Ex. 36, Brand tracking Entire document
slide deck
Ex. 37, Brand tracking Entire document
slide deck
Ex. 39, Email
Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(94-52)

Ex. 41 Krosnick Rpt.

No Public Version
Filed/(94-54)

Ex. 42 Weir Decl.

Ex. 40, Email

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Entire document

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
p. 40: ¶ 10 lines 6, not including DENIED (no
“together, and computed the
supporting
average of them.4”; p.40: ¶ 10
declaration)
lines 7-8; p.40: ¶ 10 line 9, not
including “The average ($8.15)
was then rounded to the nearest
half”; p. 40: n. 4, line 1, not
including “The product pricing
in CMG/7184 – 004261-4386
did not include”; p. 40: n. 4,
line 2, not including “Thus, the
costs; p. 40: n. 4, line 3, not
including “on April 11, 2017
did not influence the set of
purchase prices used in the
survey.”
p. 5: ¶. 10, line 1, not including GRANTED
“Another internal marketing
document highlights Chipotle’s
efforts to”; p. 5: ¶ 10, lines 2-9;
p. 5: ¶ 10, line 10, not including
“7”; p. 5: ¶ 11, line 1, not
including “This same document
specifically highlights”; p. 5: ¶
11, lines 2-11; p. 5: ¶ 11, line
12, not including “8”; p. 6: ¶ 12,
line 1, not including “The same
document highlights Chipotle’s
efforts to”; p. 6: ¶ 12, line 2, not
including “9”; p. 6: ¶ 13, line 1,
not including “A Chipotle brand
tracking study performed on
behalf of Chipotle finds that”;
p. 6: ¶ 13, lines 2-3; p. 6: ¶ 13,
line 4, not including “The study
finds that many respondents
rank”; p. 6: ¶ 13, line 5; p. 6: ¶
13, line 6, not including “10”; p.
6: ¶ 14, line 1, not including “A
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Entire document
sealed/(98-2)
Entire document
sealed/(98-3)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Entire document
sealed/(98-4)

14
15

No Public Version
Filed/(103-4)

16

Ex. A, Opposition to
Mot. for Class Cert
Ex. U (pricing info)
Ex. B, Opposition to
Mot. for Class Cert
Ex. V (marketing
plan)
Ex. C, Opposition to
Mot. for Class Cert
Ex. BB (Murrin Decl.
and pricing exhibits)
Opposition to
Defendant’s Mot. for
Summary Judgment

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

No Public Version
Filed/(103-6)

King Decl.

follow up Chipotle brand
tracking study identifies that”;
p. 6: ¶ 14, line 2, not including
“11”; p. 6: n. 10, 11 p. 12:
Table 1: Dollar Sales p. 13:
Table 2: Dollar Sales and Price
Premium Damages; source p.
14: ¶ 42, line 1, not including
“Using Defendants’ sales
records, I have determined that
approximately”; p. 14: Table 3,
Number of Units and Total
Statutory Damages
Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

4:11, not including “2014
document entitled”; 4:12, not
including “SJ”; 4:13, not
including “Ex. 1 at CMG_7184006412-13.2 In a February 3,
2014 version of a document”;
4:14-16; 4:17, not including
“See SJ Ex.”; 4:18, not
including “2 at CMG_7184007577-78. Thus,”; 4:19;
2:8, not including “dated
January 3, 2014, produced by
Chipotle in this litigation”;
2:13, not including “dated
February 3, 2014, produced by
Chipotle in this litigation”;
2:17, not including “4. Attached
hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and
correct copy of an email
entitled”; 2:18, not including
“dated June 3, 2014, from
Chipotle Support to Joshua
Brau,”; 2:22, not including “5.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is

GRANTED

7

DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)

a true and correct copy of an
email entitled”; 2:23, not
including “dated February 3,
2014,”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Entire document
sealed/(103-8)
Entire document
sealed/(103-10)
No Public Version
Filed/(103-12)

Ex. 1, Chipotle GMO
talking points
Ex. 2, Chipotle’s
stance on GMOs
Ex. 3, Email

No Public Version
Filed/(103-14)

Ex. 4, Email

III.

Entire document
Entire document
Entire document

Entire document

GRANTED
GRANTED
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Nos. 94 and 103, and GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 91 and 98. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file

12

public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied and/or for which

13

no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local

14

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

15

will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying

16

the administrative motions.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/18/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8