Vigdor et al v. Super Lucky Casino, Inc. et al
Filing
188
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE ( 150 , 154 , 158 , 159 , 163 )MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (This order grants/denies in part docket nos. 150 , 158 , 163 and grants docket nos. 154 and 159 ). (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DAN VIGDOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163
10
SUPER LUCKY CASINO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-05326-HSG
12
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal
13
documents in connection with the parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163.
14
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal, as
15
described below.
16
I.
17
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 & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
20
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
21
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
22
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this
23
strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion
24
must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
25
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
26
understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations
27
omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
28
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a
1
vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
2
scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.
3
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records
4
may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,
5
without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
6
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
8
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This
9
requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information
10
is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
12
examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
13
F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
14
II.
15
16
17
DISCUSSION
Because the parties move to file documents related to their motions in limine, the Court
will apply the lower good cause standard.
The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed
18
below because they contain confidential business and financial information relating to the
19
operations of Defendants. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,
20
2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto
21
Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
22
Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial
23
information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). Further, several of
24
the current sealing requests seek to seal information materially identical to prior sealing requests,
25
which this Court granted. See Dkt. No. 143. The Court sees no reason why it should here find
26
that information it previously deemed sealable no longer meets the standard.
27
28
However, as detailed below, a number of the parties’ proposed sealing requests are based
on the parties’ designation of the material as “Confidential.” A designation of confidentiality is
2
1
not sufficient to establish that the material is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). And for
2
many of these sealing requests, the designating party failed to file a declaration in support of
3
sealing the portions sought to be redacted, and therefore did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-
4
5(e). See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court denies the sealing of documents relating to material
5
designated “Confidential” for which the designating party failed to provide support.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Docket Number
Document
Portions Sought
Public/(Sealed)
to be Sealed
Defendants’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 150
151-1/(150-5)
Excerpts of Defendants’ Pages and lines:
Motion in Limine No. 1
2:7-16; 2:19;
2:22–24; 3:1–2
151-2/(150-6)
Excerpts of Defendants’
Motion in Limine No. 2
Entire documents
sealed/(150-7, 1508, 150-9, 150-10,
150-11)
Exhibits A-E to the
Entire Exhibits
Declaration of Julia
Allen ISO Defendants’
Motions in Limine Nos. 1
and 2
12
Pages and lines:
1:20–24; 2:24–25;
3:22–25; 4:11–13;
4:22–23
13
14
15
16
17
Ruling
DENIED: no supporting
Rule 79-5(e)(1)
declaration from
Plaintiffs
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
DENIED as to Exhibits
A–D: no supporting
Rule 79-5(e)(1)
declaration from
Plaintiffs
GRANTED as to
Exhibit E: confidential
business information
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 154
154-3/(154-4)
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’
Pages and lines:
Motion in Limine No. 2
1:16–20; 1:23–
2:1; 2:18–20
Entire document
Exhibit 1 to the
Entire Exhibit
sealed/(154-6)
Declaration of Robert
Estrin ISO Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine No. 2
Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 158
158-3/(158-5)
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’
Pages and lines:
Opposition to
2:5–9
Defendants’ Motion in
Limine No. 1
158-4/(158-6)
Exhibits C–H to the
Entire Exhibits
Declaration of Robert
Estrin ISO Plaintiffs’
Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion in
3
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
DENIED: no proffered
good cause to seal
DENIED as to Exhibit
C: no proffered good
cause to seal
GRANTED as to
1
Docket Number
Public/(Sealed)
Portions Sought
to be Sealed
Limine No. 1
2
3
Document
7
Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 159
159-3/(159-4)
Excerpts of Plaintiffs’
Pages and lines:
Opposition to
1:7–9; 3:5–10;
Defendants’ Motion in
3:24–27; 4:12–13
Limine No. 2
Defendants’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 163
164/(163-5)
Excerpts of Defendants’ Pages and lines:
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 1:17; 4:18–19
Motion in Limine No. 1
8
165/(163-7)
Excerpts of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine No. 2
166/(163-9)
Excerpts of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine No. 3
Exhibits A–D to the
Declaration of Julia
Allen ISO Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motions in Limine Nos. 1
and 3
4
5
6
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Entire documents
sealed/(163-10;
163-11; 163-12;
163-13)
14
15
16
III.
Pages and lines:
2:6–8; 2:25–3:9;
3:11–3:16; 3:25–
4:9
Pages and lines:
2:4–7; 2:10–11;
2:12–14
Entire Exhibits
Ruling
Exhibits D–H:
confidential business
information
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
DENIED: no supporting
Rule 79-5(e)(1)
declaration from
Plaintiffs
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
GRANTED:
confidential business
information
DENIED: no supporting
Rule 79-5(e)(1)
declaration from
Plaintiffs
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 150, 158, and 163, and
17
GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 154 and 159. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all
18
documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied within seven days of this order.
19
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative
20
motions are granted will remain under seal.
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/23/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?