Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

Filing 226

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 220 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al.,

Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK

Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

(Re: Docket No. 220)

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC.,
et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Before the court is one administrative motion to seal.1 “Historically, courts have

14

recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial

15

records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

16

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records

17

relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”4 bear

18

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

19

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

20
21
22

1

See Docket No. 220.

2

23

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)).

24

3

25

4

26
27
28

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

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., Case No. 15-55084, 2016 WL 142440, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan.
11, 2016).
5

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
1

Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

3

their competitive interest.”6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially

4

related, to the merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access.7

5

Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause”

6

standard of Rule 26(c).8 This standard requires a “particularized showing”9 that “specific

7

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.10 “Broad allegations of harm,

8

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.11 A protective

9

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that
good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

13
14

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

15
16
17
18
19

6

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

7

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *4; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he
public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions
because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause
of action.”).
8

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

9

Id.

20
21
22
23

10

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).
11

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

24
25
13

26
27
28

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.”).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”14 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

5

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

6

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”15
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:

7
8
9
10

Motion
to Seal
220-4

Document to be Sealed

Result

Plaintiff’s Motion To
Compel

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.
Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-8

Schiltz Decl. ISO
Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel
Ex. 1 to Schiltz Decl.

220-10

Ex. 14 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-12

Ex. 15 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-14

Ex. 16 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

220-6

14
15
16
17

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

18
19
20

Reason/Explanation
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
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).
15

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1
2

220-16

Ex. 17 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-18

Ex. 18 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-20

Ex. 19 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-22

Ex. 20 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-24

Ex. 21 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-26

Ex. 22 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-28

Ex. 23 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-30

Ex. 24 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-32

Ex. 25 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-34

Ex. 26 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-36

Ex. 27 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

220-38

Ex. 28 to Schiltz Decl.

Designations outlined in red
SEALED.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

SO ORDERED.

23

Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.
Narrowly tailored to
confidential personal
information.

Dated: March 3, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL