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)

Download PDF
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?