Werdebaugh-v-Blue Diamond Growers

Filing 192

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 164 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 165 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 177 Adm inistrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 185 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 186 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CHRIS WERDEBAUGH,

Case No. 12-CV-02724-LHK

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 164, 165, 177, 179, 185, 186

Defendant.

15
16

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Defendant Blue Diamond

17
18

Growers (“Defendant” or “Blue Diamond”), ECF Nos. 164,1 165, 179, and by Plaintiff Chris

19

Werdebaugh (“Plaintiff” or “Werdebaugh”), ECF Nos. 177, 185, 186. The parties seek to seal

20

briefing and exhibits filed by the parties in connection with Defendant’s motion to decertify, ECF

21

No. 167, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 166.
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

22
23

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

24

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

25
26
27
28

1

ECF Nos. 164 and 165 appear to be the same sealing motion.
1

Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

2

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

4

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

5

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447

6

F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when

7

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

8

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secret.”

9

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of
records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions include “motions

12

for summary judgment.” Id.

13

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

14

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

15

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

16

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”

18

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

19

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

20

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad

21

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not

22

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). In general,

23

motions for class certification and motions to decertify are considered nondispositive. See In re

24

High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

25

Sept. 30, 2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the

26

Court finds that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests

27
28

2
Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1
2

to seal.”).
Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

3

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

4

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

5

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

6

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

7

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

8

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

9

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the
production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing

12

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

13

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

14

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

15

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

16

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

17

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

18

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

19

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

20

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

21

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

22

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

23

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing

24

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

25

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

26

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

27
28

3
Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests to seal

1
2

documents in connection with Defendant’s motion to decertify and the “compelling reasons”

3

standard to Defendant’s request to seal documents in connection with its motion for summary

4

judgment. With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

5
6

Motion to Seal

Standard

7

165

Good Cause

8

165

Good Cause

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration
of Geoffrey R. Pittman in
Support of Defendant Blue
Diamond Growers’ Motion
to Decertify the Rule
23(b)(3) Damages Class:
Expert Report of Dr. Oral
Capps, Jr.

165

Good Cause

165

Compelling
Reasons

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration
of Geoffrey R. Pittman in
Support of Defendant Blue
Diamond Growers’ Motion
to Decertify the Rule
23(b)(3) Damages Class:
Rebuttal Expert Report of
Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D.
Exhibit A to the Declaration
of Megan Oliver Thompson
in Support of Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment or Partial
Summary Judgment in the
Alternative: Expert Report of
Dr. Julie Caswell.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Document to be Sealed or
Redactions to be Made
Motion to decertify

23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Ruling
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.

GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Defendant requested sealing of
third-party consumer market
surveys based on Plaintiff’s
designation of this material as
confidential. Neither party has
shown a compelling reason to seal
this information.

1

Motion to Seal

Standard

2

177

Good Cause

177

Good Cause

179

Good Cause

179

Good Cause

185

Compelling
Reasons

185

Compelling
Reasons

Exhibit 5 Second
Supplemental Expert Report
of Dr. Oral Capps

185

Compelling
Reasons

Expert Report of Dr. Julie
Caswell

3
4

Document to be Sealed or
Redactions to be Made
Exhibit B: Second
Supplemental Expert Report
of Dr. Oral Capps, Jr.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Decertification
Reply in Support of Motion
to Decertify the Rule
23(b)(3) Damages Class
Declaration of Dr. Keith
Ugone in Response to Dr.
Oral Capps’ Second
Supplemental Expert Report
Exhibit 3 Expert Report of
Dr. Oral Capps

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Ruling
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because Plaintiff’s request is not
narrowly tailored to seal only the
sealable material that the Exhibits
may contain. See Civ. L. R. 795(b). For example, while specific
figures may be sealed, there is no
need to seal the title or the variables
that are disclosed in public filings.
GRANTED as to proposed
reactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because Plaintiff’s request is not
narrowly tailored to seal only the
sealable material that the Exhibits
may contain. See Civ. L. R. 795(b). For example, while specific
figures may be sealed, there is no
need to seal the title or information
such as the months or dates.
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because Plaintiff’s request is not
narrowly tailored to seal only the
sealable material that the Exhibits
may contain. See Civ. L. R. 795(b). Some proposed redactions
include information neither party
has requested to seal in other
exhibits.
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for the same reason as Defendant’s
request to seal the same portions of
this report. See infra; ECF No. 165.

1

Motion to Seal

2

186

Compelling
Reasons

Document to be Sealed or
Redactions to be Made
Excerpts of Bill Ng
Deposition

186

Compelling
Reasons

Blue Diamond Documents
483–90

186

Compelling
Reasons

Blue Diamond Documents
33–40 and 140–44

3

Standard

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Ruling
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff has failed to offer any
specific, compelling reason why
portions of Billy Ng’s deposition
should be sealed. If Defendant is
the designating party, it failed to
file a supporting declaration as
required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff has failed to offer any
specific, compelling reason why
these documents should be sealed
in their totality. If Defendant is the
designating party, it failed to file a
supporting declaration as required
by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff has failed to offer any
specific, compelling reason why
these documents should be sealed
in their totality. If Defendant is the
designating party, it failed to file a
supporting declaration as required
by Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

16
The parties shall file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order within seven
17
(7) days.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: December 15, 2014
20
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
Case No.: 12-CV-02724-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS