Vigdor et al v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc. et al

Filing 143

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (granting in part and denying in part docket nos. 80 , 92 , 112 , 115 , 122 , 126 , 130 and 133 and granting docket nos. 88 and 140 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAN VIGDOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 80, 88, 92, 112, 115, 122,

SUPER LUCKY CASINO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-05326-HSG

126, 130, 133, 140

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. 80, 88, 92, 112, 115, 122, 126, 130, 133, and 140.
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 Defendants. 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 motions and

6

exhibits as containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling

7

reasons to grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal.

8

A number of Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions indicate that they are contingent upon

9

Defendants 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 Defendants’ CBI for which

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

neither party has provided support.

12

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

13
14
15

Docket Number
Public/(Sealed)
80-3/(80-1)

16
17

No Public Version
Filed/(80-2)

Document

Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed

Ruling (basis)

Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File a Fourth
Amended Complaint
Murray Declaration

Proposed redactions listed in
Dkt. No. 80

GRANTED

Proposed redactions listed in
Dkt. No. 80, plus page 5, lines
1–12 of the proposed Fourth
Amended Complaint and
redline.
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal Exhibits A–C to Exhibit
1 to the Murray Declaration and
quotations from these
documents.
7:8-10; 17:7-9; 24:2-4, 24:1012; 25:28-26:2; 27:28-28:2;
28:9-10; 29:18-19; 30:13-15;
31:15-19; 32:23-25; 37:27-38:1;
40:1-2
Proposed redactions in Dkt. No.
92-4, plus page 5, lines 1–12 of
the proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint.
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal Exhibits A–C to the

GRANTED IN
PART

18
19
20
21
22
23

No Public Version
Filed/(88-3)

24
25
26
27
28

No Public Version
Filed/(92-5)

Exhibit 9 to Estrin
Declaration
(Plaintiff’s Responses
to Defendant’s Third
Set of Interrogatories)
Fourth Amended
Complaint

3

GRANTED

GRANTED IN
PART

1
2
3

No Public Version
Filed/(112/4)

Defendants’ Motion
for Summary
Judgment

No Public Version
Filed /(112-5)

Exhibit 1 to Allen
Declaration

Entire document
sealed/(112-6)
Entire document
sealed/(112-7)
Entire document
sealed/(112-8)
Entire document
sealed/(112-9)
Entire document
sealed/(112-10)
No Public Version
Filed /(112-11)

Exhibit 2 to Allen
Declaration
Exhibit 5 to Allen
Declaration
Exhibit 8 to Allen
Declaration
Exhibit 9 to Allen
Declaration
Exhibit 10 to Allen
Declaration
Exhibit 13 to Allen
Declaration

No Public Version
Filed /(112-12)

Exhibit 14 to Allen
Declaration

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed /(112-13)

Exhibit 15 to Allen
Declaration

Entire document

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

Fourth Amended Complaint and
quotations from these
documents.
Page 3, lines 6-7 Page 6, lines
GRANTED IN
6-12, 14-22 Page 7, lines 1 Page PART
14, lines 13-17 Page 16, lines
13-14 Page 17, lines 11, 27
Page 24, lines 7-11, 15-16, 1819 Page 25, lines 2-3, 6-8, 1012, 25-26
Entire document
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
Entire document
GRANTED
Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

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

17
18

DENIED (no

19

supporting

20

declaration)

21

No Public Version
Filed /(112-14)

Exhibit 16 to Allen
Declaration

23
No Public Version
Filed/(115-5)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary
Judgment

118/(115-6)

Appendix of Exhibits

25
26
27
28

DENIED (no
supporting

22

24

Entire document

declaration)
1:14, 2:10-3:22, 4:3-6, 5:12, 13- GRANTED IN
14, 5:20-6:1, 5:27-28, 6:6-9,
PART
6:12-20, 9:25, 10:6, 11:8-11,
12:27-28, 12:28-13:1, 13:4-6,
13:10-11, 13:26-27
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal: 5:10, 10:8
Redactions listed in Dkt. No.
GRANTED
120
4

1

No Public Version
Filed/(122-6)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition
to Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Judgement

No Public Version
Filed/(122-4)

Appendix of Exhibits

No Public Version
Filed/(126-4)

Defendants’
Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary
Judgment

Entire document
sealed/(126-5)
Entire document
sealed/(126-6)
No Public Version
Filed/(126-7)

Exhibit A to Talarico
Declaration
Exhibit B to Talarico
Declaration
Exhibit C to Hur
Declaration

No Public Version
Filed/(126-8)

Exhibit D to Hur
Declaration

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(126-9)

Exhibit E to Hur
Declaration

Entire document

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

1:25-4:7, 4:8-7:6, 7:7-13, 7:1411:16, 13:9-10, 13:11-20, 14:613, 14:14-17, 14:22-24, 15:2023, 15:27-28, 16:18-21, 17:520, 18 n.8, 20:1-8, 20:18-22,
20:25-26:8, 21:16-28, 23:4-7,
23:19-24:2, 24:15-25:10,
including n. 10, 25:11-15
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal: 4:8-7:6, 13:11-20,
14:14-17, 15:1-15,16:8-9,
25:11-15
Vigdor Declaration, Bradway
Declaration, Margulis
Declaration at 1:21-23, Jacobs
Declaration at 3:7-4:3, Exhibits:
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57,
60, 61, 62, 63, 64
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal Exhibits: 19, 37, 38, 47,
48, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59
Page 4, lines 17-19 Page 5,
lines 1-8 & 15-17 Page 8, lines
16-18 & 22 Page 9, lines 1-11
Page 13, lines 7 & 26 Page 17,
lines 24-25 Page 18, lines 1, 1821, 23-24 Page 19, lines 1 &
10-11 Page 20, lines 2-6 & 24
Page 21, lines 1-2, 12-14, 25-26
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal: Pages 3, lines 24 & 26
Page 5, lines 12-14
Entire document

GRANTED IN
PART

Entire document

GRANTED

Entire document

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

25
26
27
28

5

GRANTED IN
PART

GRANTED IN
PART

GRANTED

1

No Public Version
Filed/(126-10)

Exhibit F to Hur
Declaration

Entire document

Entire document
sealed/(126-11)
130-3/(130/4)

Exhibit G to Timmins
Declaration
Defendants Reply in
Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment

Entire document

No Public Version
Filed/(130-5)

Exhibit 17 to Allen
Declaration

No Public Version
Filed/(130-6)

Exhibit 18 to Allen
Declaration

Entire document

Entire document
sealed/(130-7)
No Public Version
Filed/(133-5)

Exhibit 19 to Allen
Declaration
Plaintiffs’ Reply in
Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment

Entire document

17

133-6/(133-7)

18

Entire document
sealed/(133-7)
Entire document
sealed/(133-7)
Entire document
sealed/(133-7)
140-3/(140-4)

Supplemental Jacobs
Declaration
Exhibit 65

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Page 6, lines 13-15 Page 8,
lines 13-15 Page 9, lines 3-5
Page 11, lines 5-8 & 11 Page
13, lines 26-28 Page 14, lines 4
& 23 Page 15, lines 10 & 23
Entire document

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Entire document

GRANTED

Exhibit 66

Entire document

GRANTED

Exhibit 67

Entire document

GRANTED

Plaintiffs’ Objections
to Evidence
Submitted by
Defendants with Their
Reply in Support of
Defendants’ Motion
for Summary
Judgment

Pages 1:13-16; 2:1, 2:6-7; 2:910; and 2:12-20

GRANTED

16

21
22
23
24
25
26

DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
GRANTED
GRANTED IN
PART

15

20

GRANTED

Pages 1:18-20, 3:3-5, 3:14-4:5,
1:18-20, 4:19-21, 6:20-21, 7:79, 7:28-8:3, 8:19-23, 8:24-28,
9:2-5, 9:17-18, 9:21-25, 9:2627, 10:7-8, 11:17-19, 12:22-25
(n. 5), 13:8-11, 15:13-14
The Court DENIES the motion
to seal:
7:4, 8:1-4
Paragraph 2

14

19

declaration)
DENIED (no
supporting
declaration)
GRANTED

27
28
6

GRANTED

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

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

3

Nos. 80, 92, 112, 115, 122, 126, 130, and 133, and GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 88 and 140. The Court

4

DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has

5

been denied and/or for which no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above.

6

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

7

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

8

versions accompanying the administrative motions.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

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

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7