Monk, Jr. v. North Coast Brewing Co. Inc.

Filing 156

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING ( 101 , 110 , 112 , 116 , 118 , 132 and 138 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THELONIOUS MONK, JR.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

NORTH COAST BREWING CO. INC.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Case No. 17-cv-05015-HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 101, 110, 112, 116, 118, 132,
138

Defendant.
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal various documents

12
13
14
15

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. See Dkt. Nos. 101, 110, 112, 116, 118, 132, 138.
I.

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

16

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

17

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from

18

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

19

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in

20

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To

21

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the
public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–
79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s
interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have
become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

1

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the

2

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

3

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

4
5

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

6

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

7

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5

8

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

document or portions of it 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 be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

12
13
14
15
16

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often
unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal
must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

17
Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
18
19
20

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will
not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation
omitted).

21
II.
22
23
24
25
26
27

DISCUSSION
The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the
“compelling reasons” standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing
portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and
financial information relating to the operations of the Monk Estate, North Coast Brewing
Company, Inc., and non-party the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc.,

28
2

1

298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as

2

sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting

3

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also Linex Techs., Inc. v.

4

Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding

5

sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal);

6

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal.

7

Dec. 10, 2012). The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and

8

exhibits as containing confidential business information and the Court finds sufficiently

9

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

10

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dkt. No.
Public/(Sealed)
101-3/(101-4)

14
15
16

101-5/(101-6)

110-3/(110-4)

17
18

112-3/(112-4)

19
20

Document

Portion(s) Sought to be
Sealed
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 101-4

Exhibit 2 to Defendant’s
Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony
Exhibit 6 to Defendant’s
Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony
Opposition to Defendant’s
Daubert Motion to Exclude
Expert Testimony
Deposition of Douglas
Moody

112-5/(112-6)

24

116-5/(116-6)

25

116-7/(116-8)
116-9/(116-10)

Exhibit 29

116-11/(116-12)

Exhibit 30

26
27
28

3

GRANTED

Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-6
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-8
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-10
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-12

Exhibit 28

23

GRANTED

Deposition testimony at
160:2–21, 161:7–24;
Deposition Exhibit 13
Deposition testimony at
20:9; account number in
Deposition Exhibit 56
Names in Exhibit 95
Deposition exhibit
quotation at 8:7–9

Deposition of Denise Pruitt
Reply Memorandum in
Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment
Exhibit 27

GRANTED

Value of royalty income at
8:19

Deposition of Gale Monk

112-7/(112-8)
116-3/(116-4)

GRANTED

Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 101-6

21
22

Ruling (basis)

GRANTED

GRANTED

GRANTED
GRANTED

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

116-13/(116-14)

Exhibit 31

2

116-15/(116-16)

Exhibit 32

3

116-17/(116-18)

Exhibit 33

4

118-3/(118-4)

Exhibit 16 in Support of
Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony
Exhibit 3 to Motion in
Limine No. 1
Exhibit A to Opposition to
Motion in Limine No. 1
Exhibit B to Opposition to
Motion in Limine No. 1
Exhibit C to Opposition to
Motion in Limine No. 1

1

5
6

132-3/(132-4)

7

138-3/(138-4)

8
9

138-5/(138-6)
138-7/(138-8)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

III.

Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-14
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-16
Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 116-18
Redacted version in Dkt.
No. 118-3

GRANTED

Entire exhibit

GRANTED

Entire exhibit

GRANTED

Entire exhibit

GRANTED

Proposed redactions in
Dkt. No. 138-8

GRANTED

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal Dkt. Nos. 101, 110,

13

112, 116, 118, 132, and 138. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal

14

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

15

access only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/20/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4