Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group LLC

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Beth Labson Freeman granting 55 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MATTHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-04236-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE INFORMATION
UNDER SEAL

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its

14

Partial Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit 1 thereto (“Motion to Seal,” ECF 55), pursuant to Civil

15

Local Rule 79-5(d). Defendant seeks to seal portions of these two documents because they

16

reference confidential information concerning an agreement between Defendant and a third-party.

17

(Id. at 2) Plaintiff submits a declaration in support of the requested sealing (“Nagel Decl.”). (ECF

18

55-1) Because Plaintiff’s declaration offers a compelling reason to seal portions of the Partial

19

Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit 1 to the Motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Seal.

20

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

21

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal documents, a “compelling

23

reasons” standard, which applies to most judicial records, and a “good cause” standard, which

24

applies to “private materials unearthed during discovery.” Cf. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

25

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A party that seeks to seal portions of a

26

motion to dismiss, and portions of any supporting documents, must meet the “compelling reasons”

27

standard articulated in Phillips.

28

In this case, the declaration filed with Defendant’s Motion meets the compelling reasons

1

standard. Defendant cites facts to the Court regarding the reasons disclosure of this information

2

could “competitively disadvantage Chrysler in future negotiations with other dealers” if the terms

3

of the agreement in question were to be made public. (Nagel Decl., ECF 55-1 at ¶ 3)

4

Defendant has filed with the Court a public, redacted version of the Partial Motion to

5

Dismiss (ECF 55-3) as well as Exhibit 1 to the Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF 55-5), consistent

6

with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C), and seeks only to seal the information related to the

7

confidential information in question. As such, Defendant’s request is appropriately narrowly

8

tailored.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Seal, and permits
Defendant to file under seal portions of its Partial Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit 1 thereto.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2