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