Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. et al

Filing 430

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 364 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES BAIRD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 17-cv-01892-HSG
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 364

BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to seal certain portions

14

of the parties’ briefs related to the motion to exclude expert testimony of Russell Wermers (Dkt.

15

Nos. 321-3, 333-3, 336- 4) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 364.

16

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.

5

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

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

The Court finds that under either standard, the parties have provided a compelling interest

24

in sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential

25

business and financial information that is subject to a license agreement which imposes strict

26

requirements to keep the licensed information, and information derived from it, out of the public

27

domain. The remaining material that the parties seek to jointly file under seal reflects information

28

that was designated “Confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order entered by this Court
2

1

on October 18, 2018. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012

2

WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group,

3

Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No.

4

C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial

5

information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal).

6

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

7
8
9

Document
Ex. A to Boyle Declaration
(Daubert Motion)

Page(s): Lines(s)
Sought to be Sealed
23: 24-25

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Ex. A to Boyle Declaration
(Daubert Motion)

12
13
14
15
16

Ex. A to Boyle Declaration
(Daubert Motion)

17
18
19
20
21

Ex. B to Boyle Declaration
(BlackRock’s Opposition to
Daubert Motion)

2: 6-8
7: 9-12, 25-26
10: 11-21
11: 1-7, 20-21
16: 16-17, 25
17: 1-5
22: 26-27
23: 22-23
i: 19-21
17: 18-19, 22-24
18: 1, 2-3, 7-12, 2223, 24, 25-26
19: 1-2, 4, 7-10, 1618, 21-22, 25
20: 1, 6, 7-9, 11, 13,
14-17, 19, 28
13: 1-3, 25
21: 13-16 24: 17

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ex. B to Boyle Declaration
(BlackRock’s Opposition to
Daubert Motion)

i: 21-22
2: 22-23
5: 15 19: 4, 6-8, 11,
14, 24-27
20: 1-3, 3-8, 11, 1516, 18, 23-25
21: 1-2, 5, 11, 1316, 23
22: 1-3, 7, 9-14, 16,
3

Ruling (basis)
GRANTED. The Court has
already authorized sealing the
underlying material.
GRANTED. Confidential and
proprietary information regarding
securities lending business,
financial information, and client
relationships, including internal
correspondence regarding same.

GRANTED. Confidential
references to the proprietary
database of third party. The
license for this database obliges
licensee and its expert to keep the
database and materials derived
from it out of the public domain.
GRANTED. Confidential and
proprietary information regarding
securities lending business,
financial information, and client
relationships, including internal
correspondence regarding same.
GRANTED. Confidential
references to the proprietary
database of third party. The
license for this database obliges
licensee and its expert to keep the
database and materials derived
from it out of the public domain.

1
2
3
4

Ex. C to Boyle Declaration
(Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of
Daubert Motion)

5
6

19-20
23: 5-6, 9, 11, 1316, 18
i: 17-19
12: 14-15, 17-18, 2026
13: 7-8, 12-14, 1516, 18-22, 27-28
14: 4-6, 7-13, 17- 18,
19-20, 22-25

GRANTED. Confidential
references to the proprietary
database of third party. The
license for this database obliges
licensee and its expert to keep the
database and materials derived
from it out of the public domain.

7
8
9

I.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 364. The Court

DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which no public version has

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

been filed, as indicated in the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents

12

filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The

13

public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/12/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4