Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

Filing 245

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal, granting-in-part and denying-in-part 244 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE ANIMATION WORKERS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

8

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

9

(Re: Docket No. 244)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.5

19

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

20

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

21
22

1

23

2

24

See Docket No. 244.

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)).
3

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

4

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).

5

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

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-04062-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that

8

good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,12 but a blanket protective order that allows the

9

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

10

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

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, 809 F.3d at 1099; 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-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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:

5
6

Docket
No.

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

7
8

244-4

Henn Declaration

Designations highlighted in
yellow at

9

¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

10

SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Only sealed portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.

12

SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: March 28, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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-IN-PART MOTION TO SEAL