Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al
Filing
106
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 79 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
IN RE ANIMATION WORKERS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Case No.:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 79
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
16
17
18
Before the Court is the administrative motion to seal brought by Defendants Blue Sky
19
Studios, Inc., Sony Pictures, Inc., and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Inc., (collectively,
20
“Defendants”) ECF No. 79. Defendants seek to redact certain exhibits filed in connection with
21
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 75.
22
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
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
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong
26
presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
27
28
1
Case No.: 14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
1
Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of
2
overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that
3
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447
4
F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when
5
such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to
6
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secret.”
7
Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of
8
records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
9
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions include “motions
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
for summary judgment.” Id.
Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of
12
access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive
13
motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”
14
parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal
15
Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”
16
standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
17
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
18
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad
19
allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not
20
suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
21
In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established
22
by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request
23
that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or
24
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly
25
tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.
26
Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that
27
28
2
Case No.: 14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
1
is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each
2
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the
3
document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document
4
that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing
5
of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as
6
required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”
7
Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).
8
9
Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig.,
460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court applies the “compelling reasons”
standard to Defendants’ requests to redact certain information in documents filed in connection
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
with Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court rules on the instant motion as follows:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exhibit
Exhibit A (April 22, 2005,
email from Meledandri)
Exhibit B (August 11,
2004 email from
McAdams)
Exhibit C (September 29,
2005 email from
McAdams)
Exhibit D (“Competitors
List”)
Exhibit E (August 2005
emails from McAdams)
Exhibit F (December 2007
emails from Catmull)
Ruling
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
reactions.
GRANTED as to proposed
reactions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
3
26
27
28
Proposed Redactions to be Made
Redaction of name of potential
employee
Redaction of names of potential
employees and employees that referred
the potential employees
Redaction of names and contact
information for potential employee and
the potential employee’s references
Redaction of phone numbers for
employees of Defendants and of names
and contact information for employees
of third parties
Redaction of names of potential
employees, and cell phone number of
Pixar employee
Redaction of name of third party
Case No.: 14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?