Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 457

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 444 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/16/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ERIC BENEDICT,

Case No. 13-cv-00119-BLF

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

[Re: ECF 444]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“HP”) motion to file under

13
14

seal exhibits filed in connection with HP’s Opposition to Plaintiff Eric Benedict’s Motion for

15

Summary Judgment on Defendant’s First Amended Counterclaims. ECF 444, 456. For the

16

reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

17
18

I.

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

24

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

25

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

27

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

28

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

1

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

2

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

3

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

4

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

5

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

6

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

7

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

8

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

16

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

17

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

18

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

19

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

27

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

28

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
2

1

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

2

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

3

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

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

5

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

6

II.

DISCUSSION
The sealing motion at issue is resolved under the compelling reasons standard because

7
8

summary judgment briefing is more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. With this

9

standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ECF
No.
444-2

12
13
14

444-4

15
16
17

444-6

18
19
20

444-8

21
22
23
24
25

444-10

Document to be Sealed
Ex. 1 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.
Ex. 2 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.
Ex. 3 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.
Ex. 4 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.
Ex. 5 HP’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.

Result
GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

DENIED.

26
27
28
3

Reasoning
Contains information relating to
Plaintiff’s personal contact information,
salary offer, personal account access
information, and e-mail addresses of the
respective parties.
Contains Plaintiff’s personal contact
information.

Contains information relating to
Plaintiff’s personal contact information,
salary offer, personal account access
information, and e-mail addresses of the
respective parties.
Contains Plaintiff’s personal contact
information.

Contains Plaintiff’s home address.
Denied because the designating party did
not provide a supporting declaration.

1

444-12

Ex. 7 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.

DENIED.

444-14

Ex. 8 to HP’s Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on
Defendant’s First
Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

III.

Contains an email from Plaintiff’s
counsel to HP identifying the names of
files from the imagined hard-drive that
Benedict was designating as his “private,
personal property,” and that Plaintiff
requested be treated as “Highly
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”
Denied because the designating party did
not provide a supporting declaration.
Contains confidential and proprietary
business information and information
identifying HP’s customers, customer
contacts, the particular services it
provides for them, and its customers’
confidential and proprietary business
information.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 444 is GRANTED IN PART and

12

DENIED IN PART. The Court will not consider the improperly sealed documents unless they are

13

publicly filed.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4