Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc

Filing 133

ORDER by Judge Ronald M Whyte granting in part and denying in part 100 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 115 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 119 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

NANCY LANOVAZ, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. C-12-02646-RMW
ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS

v.
[Re Docket Nos. 100, 115, 119]
TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

17
18

Before the court are three administrative motions to seal documents. The entirety of the

19

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Supplemental Exhibits Related to Class Certification,

20

Dkt. No. 119, is denied as moot as the court denied the motion to supplement. See Dkt. No. 132 at

21

n.2. The court addresses the remaining two motions, Dkt. Nos. 100 and 115, below.

22

A. Legal Standard

23

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

24

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

25

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

26

& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor

27

of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

28

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions
1
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the

2

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

3

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

4

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

5

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29

6

(Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong

7

presumption of access. See id. at 1180. Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

8

“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving

9

to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Id. at 1179 (internal quotations

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and citations omitted). As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive

11

motions requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

12

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

13

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

14

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

15

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may

16

reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see

17

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate

18

confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each

19

particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation

20

or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not

21

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

22

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court has broad

23

discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or

24

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G).

25

The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts,

26

holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of

27

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an

28

advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th
2
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the production of

2

goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business. . . .”

3

Id. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial

4

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

5

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. In this case, the Federal Circuit has counseled that

6

“Apple and Samsung have an interest in keeping their detailed product-specific financial

7

information secret . . . because they could suffer competitive harm if this information is made

8

public.” Apple, 727 F.3d at 1225.

9

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L. R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.

11

R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

12

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

13

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

14

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach

15

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table

16

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unreadacted version

17

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

18

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

19

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required

20

by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R.

21

79-5(e)(1). 1

22

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time available to the
designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As this rule change
was only recently implemented, the court applies the prior form of Civ. L. R. 79-5 for the purposes
of this order.
3
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

3

B. Sealing Order
Motion
Document to be Sealed
to Seal
100
Declaration of Dan Martin
at 2:4-12 and 3:10

4

100

2

5
6

100

7
8

100

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

100

11
12
13
14

115

15
16
17

115

18
19

115

20
21
22

115

23
24
25
26

115

Exhibit A to the
Declaration Dan Martin
(2009 Wholesale Price
List)
Exhibit B to the
Declaration Dan Martin
(2011 Wholesale Price
List)
Exhibit D to the
Declaration Dan Martin
(Specialty Wholesale Price
List)
Exhibit A to Declaration of
Carol Scott, portions of ¶¶
6, 7, 10, 12, 20-30, 32, 34,
and Exhibit 4 to
the Expert Report
(Compilation of wholesale
pricing).
Exhibit A to the Reply in
Support of Class
Certification (internal
Twinings marketing
research)
Exhibit B to the Reply in
Support of Class
Certification (internal
Twinings marketing
research)
Exhibit C to the Reply in
Support of Class
Certification (internal
Twinings marketing
research)
Exhibit D to the Reply in
Support of Class
Certification (internal
Twinings marketing
research)
Exhibit E to the Reply in
Support of Class
Certification (internal
Twinings marketing
research)

Ruling
GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
GRANTED in part and DENIED GRANTED as to the
in part.
“list price” columns;
DENIED as the rest of
the document.
GRANTED in part and DENIED GRANTED as to the
in part.
“list price” columns;
DENIED as the rest of
the document.
GRANTED in part and DENIED GRANTED as to the
in part.
“list price” columns;
DENIED as the rest of
the document.
GRANTED
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

GRANTED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

27
28
4
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Reason/Explanation

1

115

2
3
4

115

Declaration of Dr. Oral
GRANTED
Capps in Support of Reply
in Support of Class
Certification at 4:9-11; 8:221; 9:8-10, 26-27.
Plaintiff’s Reply at 1:13GRANTED
20; 2:25-28; 3:1-23

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 24, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M WHYTE
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL