California Beach Co., LLC. v. Du

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 45 the plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. In the attached order, the court denies the motion to seal the Fourth Declaration of Austin Wright without prejudice to the plaintiff's submitting a narrowly tailored sealing request that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5. (lblc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2020)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 4:19-cv-08426-YGR (LB)
THE CALIFORNIA BEACH CO., LLC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Re: ECF No. 45

v.

14
15

ORDER REGARDING SEALING

HAN XIAN DU

16

Defendant.

17
18

On September 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an administrative motion to seal the entire

19

Supplemental Fourth Declaration of Austin Wright.1 Generally, the declaration has sealable

20

information, but sealing the entire declaration does not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. The

21

court thus denies the motion to seal without prejudice to the plaintiff’s submitting a more narrowly

22

tailored redaction.
Sealing is governed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Among other requirements, a party must submit

23
24

“[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof,

25

are sealable.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A), (e)(1). Local Rule 79-5 also provides that

26
27
28

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (“Mot. to Seal”) – ECF No. 45; Fourth Declaration of
Austin Wright in Support of Motion for Award of Damages, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Fourth
Wright Decl.”) – ECF No. 45-3.
1

ORDER – No. 4:19-cv-08426-YGR (LB)

1

requests to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material” and that

2

“[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

3

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”

4

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), (d)(1)(A)–(B). Under Local Rule 79-5, a party must file (1) a sealed

5

document that has all proposed sealed portions highlighted in yellow and (2) a redacted, public-

6

record document.

7

The following is a summary of the standards for sealing.

8

“A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

9

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ that applies to all court
documents other than grand jury transcripts and pre-indictment warrant materials.” Icon-IP Pty

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 12-cv-03844-JST, 2015 WL 984121, at *1 (N.D.

12

Cal. Mar. 4, 2015) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

13

2006)).

14

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 provides that a sealing order may be issued

15

only upon a request that (1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

16

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” and (2) is “narrowly

17

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

18

With respect to the second prong, “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

19

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

20

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

21

(1978)). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in ‘keeping a watchful eye on the

22

workings of public agencies.’” Id. (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

23

Two standards generally govern sealing motions. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,

24

677 (9th Cir. 2010). The “compelling reasons” applies to most court documents, including those

25

filed in connection with dispositive motions, while the “good cause” standard applies to private

26

materials “unearthed during discovery,” including those filed in connection with non-dispositive

27

motions. Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No.: 3:12-cv-3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL

28

6055369, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (quoting Pintos, 605 F.3d at 677).
ORDER – No. 4:19-cv-08426-YGR (LB)

2

“Nondispositive motions ‘are often “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying

1
2

cause of action,’” and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not

3

apply with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

4

(quoting in part Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). For this reason, a “particular showing” of good

5

cause as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to seal such motions.

6

Kamakana, 437 F.3d at 1180; Welle, 2013 WL 6055369, at *1. “Broad allegations of harm,

7

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”

8

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). If a court finds

9

particularized harm will result from disclosure, then it balances the public and private interests to
decide whether a protective order is necessary. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995)).

12

Sealing may also be appropriate if necessary to prevent filings from being used “as sources of

13

business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598;

14

Welle, 2013 WL 6055369, at *1.
Because the declaration relates to a dispositive motion, the “compelling reasons” standard

15
16

applies. There are no compelling reasons to seal the entire declaration. Also, the declaration has

17

some information that is similar to information in a previously filed third declaration, which was

18

not filed under seal.2 For example, both declarations address “revenues, sales history, and profit

19

margins.”3 The earlier declaration also stated the loss explicitly: $316,991.4

20

The plaintiff may resubmit the sealing request within two weeks.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: September 14, 2020

23

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
2

26
27
28

See Third Wright Decl. – ECF No. 35.

Declaration of Jared B. Briant in support of Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal –
ECF No. 45-1 at ¶ 3; Compare Fourth Wright Decl. – ECF No. 45-3, with Third Wright Declaration in
support of Motion for Default Judgment (“Third Wright Decl.”) – ECF No. 35.
3

4

Fourth Wright Decl. – ECF No. 45-3 at ¶ 10; Third Wright Decl. – ECF No. 35 at ¶ 7.

ORDER – No. 4:19-cv-08426-YGR (LB)

3