Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC

Filing 140

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part 130 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

14
15
16
17

20

(Re: Docket No. 130)

Before the court is an administrative motion to seal. “Historically, courts have recognized
a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor
of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive
motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh
the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3

18
19

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION TO SEAL

Defendant.

11

13

Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF

However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject

21
22
23
24

1

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
2

Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

3

Id. at 1178-79.

4

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions

2

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

3

moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive

4

motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7

5

that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of

6

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A

7

protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous

8

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order

9

that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial

10

scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.11
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

17
18

5

See id. at 1180.

19

6

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

20

7

Id.

21

8

22

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

23

9

24

10

25

11

26
27
28

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party
to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
12

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
2
Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”13
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows:

3
4

Motion
to Seal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

5
130

Chrysler’s Motion to
Compel

UNSEALED

Designating party has
indicated that
designated portions
are not confidential.14

130

Exhibit 17

UNSEALED

Designating party has
indicated that
designated portions
are not confidential.15

130

Exhibit 19

UNSEALED

Designating party has
indicated that
designated portions
are not confidential.16

130

6

Exhibit 20

UNSEALED

Designating party has
indicated that
designated portions
are not confidential.17

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
13

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

14

See Docket No. 133.

15

See id.

16

See id.

17

See id.

23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

130

Exhibit 21

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

130

Exhibit 22

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

130

Exhibit 23

UNSEALED

Designating party has
indicated that
designated portions
are not confidential.18

130

Exhibit 27

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: November 4, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

See id.

4
Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL