Bestway (USA), Inc. et al v. SGROMO et al

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 2 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BESTWAY (USA), INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

PIETRO PASQUALE-ANTONI SGROMO,
et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

14
15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 2

Defendants.

12
13

Case No.17-cv-00205-HSG

Pending before the Court is an administrative motion filed by Plaintiffs Bestway (USA),
Inc.; Bestway (Hong Kong) International Ltd.; and Bestway Inflatable and Material Corporation
(“Plaintiffs”). Dkt. No. 2. The unopposed motion seeks to file under seal portions of its
Complaint, as well as the exhibits to the Complaint. Id. at 1; see also Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint).

16

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion.

17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

19

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

20

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

21

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

24

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

25

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

26

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79

27

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

28

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

1

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

2

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

3

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must

4

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who
seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must
base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

5
6
7

Id. (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

8
9

to file under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

also “regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts with third parties that contain

13

proprietary and confidential business information.” Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-

14

03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (granting motion to seal

15

contracts containing “confidentiality clauses, along with lists of the parties’ obligations and terms

16

of payment”).

17

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

18

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

19

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records need

20

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

21

Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific

22

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

23

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

24

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

Plaintiffs seek to seal “portions of its Complaint that cite to [two] settlement agreements

27

that include confidentiality provisions preventing the disclosure of the terms of the agreements.”

28

Dkt. No. 2 at 1. Plaintiffs also request to seal the two settlement agreements—Exhibits A and B to
2

1

the Complaint—in their entirety. Id.; see also Dkt. No. 2-1 ¶¶ 5-6 (Declaration of Nitin Gambhir)

2

(“Gambhir Decl.”). Finally, Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of Exhibit C to the Complaint, a

3

Canadian Statement of Claim, which “include[s] reference to the terms of the settlement

4

agreements.” Id.; see also Gambhir Decl. ¶ 7.
In considering whether to seal Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the accompanying exhibits, the

5
6

Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. Although the Ninth Circuit appears not to have

7

explicitly stated what standard applies to the sealing of a complaint, many courts in this district

8

and elsewhere have found that the compelling reasons standard applies. See Sjostrom v. Kraatz,

9

No. 16-cv-01381-DMR, 2016 WL 3940886, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2016); In re Google Inc.
Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013); Nucal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC, No. CIV S-10-3105 KJM-CKD, 2012 WL 260078, at *2 (E.D.

12

Cal. Jan. 27, 2012); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-

13

JAT, 2010 WL 2474387, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2010); Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 12-cv-

14

03305, 2013 WL 4428853, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig.,

15

No. C 06-06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008). This makes sense

16

because the Complaint is more than “tangentially related to the merits of the case.” See Ctr. for

17

Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Sjostrom, 2016 WL 3940886, at *2 (“Because the

18

complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons

19

standard governs the sealing request.”).
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request to file the entirety of Exhibits A and B under seal

20
21

satisfies the compelling reasons standard because those exhibits contain “proprietary and

22

confidential business information.” See Finisar, 2015 WL 3988132, at *5. Moreover, the Court

23

finds Plaintiffs’ requested redactions to the Complaint and to Exhibit C, given their references to

24

the terms of the settlement agreements, sufficiently “narrowly tailored” to protect both Plaintiffs’

25

interests and the public interest in access.

26

III.

27
28

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibits A and B

to the Complaint, and to seal portions of the Complaint and Exhibit C. Pursuant to Civil Local
3

1

Rule 79-5(f)(1), the unredacted versions of the Complaint and exhibits filed under seal will remain

2

under seal, see Dkt. No. 2, and the public will have access only to the redacted versions originally

3

filed by Plaintiffs, see Dkt. No. 1.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/28/2017

6
7
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
4