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)

Download PDF
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

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?