Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company et al

Filing 553

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ( 308 , 314 , 334 , 339 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL ANOTHER PARTYS MATERIAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PACIFIC STEEL GROUP,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et
al.,

Case No. 20-cv-07683-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL ANOTHER PARTY’S
MATERIAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 308, 314, 334, 339

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Before the Court are four motions to consider whether another party’s materials should be

13
14

sealed. This includes two motions filed by Plaintiff Pacific Steel Group (“Plaintiff”), Dkt. Nos.

15

308 and 334, and two motions filed by Defendants Commercial Metals Company, CMC Rebar

16

West, and CMC Steel, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), Dkt. Nos. 314 and 339. The Court

17

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions.

18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). For example, a court may order

1

sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard of confidential and proprietary business

2

information when public disclosure of such information “could result in improper use by business

3

competitors.” See Hyams v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18-CV-06278-HSG, 2023 WL 2960009, at *2

4

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023).
When a party seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

party or non-party, the party filing the sealing motion need not satisfy the showing described

7

above. See Civ. L-R 79-5(f)(1). Instead, within seven days of the motion’s filing, the designating

8

party must file a statement or declaration justifying the reasons for keeping the document or

9

information under seal. Id. 79-5(f)(3). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the

10

unsealing of the provisionally sealed material without further notice to the designating party. Id.

11

II.

DISCUSSION

12

A.

13

Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314 pertain to materials filed in connection with the parties’ motions in

14

Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314

limine.

15

Dkt. No. 308, Plaintiff’s motion, seeks to file under seal certain documents designated

16

confidential by Defendant and non-parties SMS Group, Inc. (“SMS”), and Danieli Corporation

17

(“Danieli”). See Dkt. No. 308 at 3–4.

18
19

Dkt. No. 314, Defendants’ motion to seal, seeks to file under seal certain documents
designated confidential by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 314 at 2.

20

Danieli timely filed a response to Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ motions. See Dkt. No. 323.

21

SMS also timely filed responses to both motions. See Dkt. Nos. 341 (SMS Statement in Response

22

to Defendants’ Motion), 342 (SMS Statement in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion). Defendants did

23

not respond to Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion.

24

Danieli requests that the three of the four documents identified by Plaintiff and Defendants

25

be redacted because they contain Danieli’s nonpublic, commercially sensitive information,

26

including confidential contract terms and negotiations, technical steel mill specifications and

27

operations, and business strategy. See Dkt. No. 323 at 4. SMS requests that all of the materials

28

Plaintiff and Defendants identified be sealed because they contain SMS’s sensitive business
2

1

information, including preliminary contract negotiations. Dkt. No. 342 at 3.
The Court finds that the documents and information Danieli and SMS seek to seal contain

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2
3

the companies’ commercially sensitive and confidential business information that satisfies the

4

compelling reasons standard and outweighs the public’s interest in viewing the documents. See

5

Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Tr., N.A., 403 F.Supp.3d 765, 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019)

6

(“[C]onfidential business information in the form of license agreements, financial terms, details of

7

confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies satisfies the compelling reasons

8

standard.”). The disclosure of this non-public business information “could reasonably place

9

[Danieli and SMS] at a competitive disadvantage if disclosed.” See In re Qualcomm Litig., No.

10

3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that

11

sealing confidential business information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the

12

parties’ business model and strategy”); see also Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-

13

BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (sealing “confidential product and

14

business information which is not intended for public disclosure”). Further, neither of these third

15

parties voluntarily put this information at issue in this litigation. See United States v. Bazaarvoice,

16

Inc., No. 13-CV-00133-WHO, 2014 WL 11297188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314 as to the materials identified by

17
18

Danieli and SMS. The Court DENIES the remainder of the motions to seal, as no other party

19

filed a declaration or response presenting a basis for sealing any other documents or information.

20

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3) (“A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of

21

the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the Designating Party.”).

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1

B.

2

Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 pertain to materials filed in connection with the parties’ oppositions

3

to each other’s motions in limine.
Dkt. No. 334, Plaintiff’s motion to seal, again seeks to file under seal certain documents or

4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339

5

information designated confidential by Defendant, SMS, and Danieli. See Dkt. No. 308 at 3–4.

6

Danieli timely filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. See Dkt. No. 347. Danieli argues it

7

has compelling reasons to seal or redact two of the three documents Plaintiff identified. See id. at

8

2. Danieli asserts that these documents similarly contain nonpublic, commercially sensitive

9

information, including confidential contract terms and negotiations, technical steel mill

10

specifications and operations, and business strategy. See id. at 4. Neither SMS nor Defendants

11

responded to Plaintiff’s motion.
Dkt. No. 339, Defendants’ motion to seal, seeks to file under seal certain documents

12
13

designated confidential by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 339 at 2.
SMS filed a timely response to Defendants’ motion. See Dkt. No. 348. Again, SMS

14
15

argues that one of the designated documents includes SMS’s confidential preliminary contract

16

negotiations. Id. at 3. No other party or non-party responded to Defendants’ motion.
The Court similarly finds that the documents and information Danieli and SMS seek to

17
18

seal related to Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 should be sealed, for the same reasons as stated above. The

19

materials Danieli and SMS identify contain the companies’ commercially sensitive and

20

confidential business information that satisfies the compelling reasons standard and outweighs the

21

public’s interest in viewing the documents.

22

The Court therefore GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 as to the materials specified by

23

Danieli and SMS. The Court DENIES the remainder of the motions to seal because no other

24

party filed a declaration or response to the motions requesting to seal or redact any other materials.

25

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).

26

III.

27
28

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ requests to determine

whether another party’s material should be sealed, Dkt. Nos. 308, 314, 334, and 339. Sealing is
4

1

GRANTED as to the materials specified by non-parties Danieli and SMS in Dkt. Nos. 323, 341,

2

342, 347, and 348, and DENIED otherwise.
The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the

3
4

proposed sealing has been denied within ten days from the date of this order. Each party is

5

responsible for submitting these conforming versions of any document that it originally filed

6

unless the parties mutually agree on a different allocation of this work.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated:

3/10/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
5