Gianni Versace, S.p.A. et al v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL et al

Filing 268

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ( 211 , 220 , 239 , 247 and 251 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GIANNI VERSACE, S.P.A., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL

VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO
SPORTIVO SRL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 211, 220, 239, 247, 251

8
v.

9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-03617-HSG

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

13
14

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 211, 220, 239, 247, 251. The Court GRANTS the

15

parties’ motions.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

8

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

9

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5
supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are

12

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The

13

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

14

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

omitted).

24
25

II.

DISCUSSION
The majority of documents and portions of documents that the parties seek to seal are

26

related to the parties’ motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 220, 239, 247. These

27

documents are more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court

28

therefore applies the “compelling reasons” standard to evaluate them. The parties have provided a
2

1

compelling interest in sealing portions of these documents, elaborated in the table below, as the

2

sealed documents contain confidential business and financial information relating to Defendants

3

Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL and Theofanis Papadas, and numerous non-parties to

4

this lawsuit, including Bluefly, Inc., Dillard’s Inc., Groupon, Inc., K&M Associates, L.P., Macy’s

5

Inc., TJX Companies Inc., Zulily, LLC, and Burlington Stores, Inc. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

filed under seal).
Apart from these documents, there are also two sealing requests accompanying the parties’

12

stipulations to alter the case schedule to accommodate personal considerations presented by

13

counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 211, 251. Because the underlying filings are not dispositive, the Court

14

applies the lower “good cause” to evaluate these sealing requests. The Court is satisfied that the

15

parties have made the necessary “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

16

result” if the information is disclosed. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210-11;

17

Corns v. Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., 62 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1111 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“The

18

Court finds that there are compelling reasons to seal this private, personal information which bears

19

only a tangential relationship to the matters to be decided here.”).

20

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

21
22
23

Docket Number
Public/(Sealed)
No Public Version
Filed//211-4

24
25
26

220-3/220-4

27
220-5/220-6
28

Document

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

Declaration of
Rosemarie T. Ring in
Support of Stipulation
and [Proposed] Order
Modifying Case
Schedule
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment
Declaration of
Zachary Briers in

Entire document

GRANTED

Pages 6, 18-20, 23, 35

GRANTED

Pages 8-10, 14, 18-21, 54-55,
61, 72-73, 75-81, 91-95

GRANTED

3

1
2
3

220-7/220-8

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

No Public Version
Filed/220-9
No Public Version
Filed/220-10
No Public Version
Filed/220-11
No Public Version
Filed/220-12
No Public Version
Filed/220-13
No Public Version
Filed/220-14
No Public Version
Filed/220-15
No Public Version
Filed/220-16
No Public Version
Filed/220-17
No Public Version
Filed/220-17
No Public Version
Filed/220-19
No Public Version
Filed/220-20
No Public Version
Filed/220-21
No Public Version
Filed/220-22
239-3/239-4

22
23

239-5/239-6

24
25
26
27
28

No Public Version

Support of Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Briers
Decl.”)
Briers Decl., Ex. 30
(Expert Report of Dr.
Serdari)
Briers Decl., Ex. 38

Pages 32, 33, 45, 52, 76-80, 8485

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 39

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 41

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 44

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 46

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 47

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 85

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 91

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 93

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 106

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 107

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 108

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 114

Entire document

GRANTED

Briers Decl., Ex. 138

Entire document

GRANTED

Plaintiffs’ Opposition
to Defendants’
Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment
Declaration of
Carolyn Luedtke in
Support of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion
for Partial Summary
Judgment (“Luedtke
Decl.”)
Luedtke Decl., Ex.

Pages 6-7

GRANTED

Page 2

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

4

1
2

Filed/239-7
No Public Version
Filed/247-3

3
4
5
6

No Public Version
Filed/251-4

7
8
9
10

III.

163
Exhibit 171 to
Declaration of
Rosemarie T. Ring In
Support of Plaintiffs’
Reply in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
Declaration of
Rosemarie T. Ring in
Support of Stipulation
and [Proposed] Order
Modifying Case
Schedule

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 211, 220, 239, 247, and 251.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

12

motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted

13

versions accompanying the administrative motions.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/30/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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