Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC

Filing 271

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Beth L. Freeman granting in part and denying in part 257 ; denying 260 ; granting 261 . (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 5:13-cv-04236-BLF

MATTHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

13

[Re: ECF 257, 260, 261]
14

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal, one from Plaintiff Mathew

18

Enterprise, Inc. alone and two filed jointly by Plaintiff and Defendant Chrysler Group LLC. See

19

Mots., ECF 257, 260, 261. All three sealing motions relate to the parties’ pretrial filings,

20

including motions in limine and portions of their expert reports. See id. For the reasons stated

21

below, the first motion, located at ECF 257, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

22

The second motion, located at ECF 260, is a duplicate of the third motion, at ECF 261, and

23

appears to have been filed in error. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The third motion, located

24

at ECF 261, is GRANTED.

25

I.

26

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

27

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

28

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
1

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. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

18

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

26

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

27

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

28

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

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

12

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

13

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

14

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the parties’ motions in limine are only tangentially related to the merits of the

15
16

case, the Court applies the good cause standard. With that standard in mind, the Court rules on the

17

instant motions as follows:

18
19
20

ECF
No.
257-4

21
22

257-6

23
24
257-8
25
26

Document to be
Sealed
Exhibit E to
Munkittrick Decl. in
support of Defendant’s
motions in limine
Exhibit O to
Munkittrick Decl. in
support of Defendant’s
motions in limine
Exhibit S to
Munkittrick Decl. in
support of Defendant’s
motions in limine

Result

Reasoning

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.

Substantive responses to
interrogatories SEALED;
interrogatories and
objections UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

27
28
3

1

257-10

2
3

Exhibit T to
Pages
Only sealed portions contain
Munkittrick Decl. in
confidential business information.
support of Defendant’s 4:13 (address only), 5:24motions in limine
6:8, 7:2-8:7, 8:13-9:4,
10:4-14:25, 17:2-19:25,
38:1-40:25

4
5
6

257-12

7
8

261-15

9
10
261-16

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

261-17

13

261-18

14

261-19

15

261-20

16

261-21

17
261-22
18
19

261-23

20
21

261-24

22
23

26
27

Tabs 26-27 of the
Stockton Opening
Report
Tab 29 of the Stockton
Opening Report

261-25

Appendix to the
Stockton Opening
Report

261-26

Rebuttal expert report
of Edward M.
Stockton, M.S.
(“Stockton Rebuttal
Report”)

24
25

Exhibit U to
Munkittrick Decl. in
support of Defendant’s
motions in limine
Expert report of
Edward M. Stockton,
M.S. (“Stockton
Opening Report”)
Tab 14 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 15 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 16 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 21 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 22 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 23 of the Stockton
Opening Report
Tab 25 of the Stockton
Opening Report

SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
SEALED

Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.

Designations highlighted
in yellow SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

SEALED

Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information.
Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

SEALED
SEALED
SEALED
SEALED
SEALED
Designations highlighted
in yellow SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted
in yellow SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted
in yellow SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted
in yellow or outlined in
red SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations outlined in
red SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.

28
4

Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.
Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.
Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

1
2

261-27

261-28

3
4
5

261-26

Tabs 9-25 of the
Stockton Rebuttal
Report
Appendix to the
Stockton Rebuttal
Report
Expert report of Glenn
Woroch

6
7

Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.
Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

Dated: August 10, 2016
_________________________________
BETH L. FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Sealed portions contain
confidential business information.

SO ORDERED.

8

Designations outlined in
red SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations outlined in
red SEALED; remainder
UNSEALED.
Designations highlighted
in yellow and exhibits 8,
9, and 11 SEALED;
remainder UNSEALED.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5