Nitsch v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc. et al

Filing 291

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 215 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 239 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 253 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 269 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK

ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al.,

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 215, 239, 253, 269

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

18

The parties have filed joint administrative motions to file under seal briefing and

19

documents related to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. ECF Nos. 215, 239, 253, 269; see

20

also ECF No. 177 (order setting sealing procedures for the instant case).

21

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

22

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

23

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

24

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in

25

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

26

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

27
28

1
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,

2

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

3

supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public

4

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons

5

justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a

6

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

7

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435

8

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

9

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

court to seal its records.” Id.
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

12

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

13

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court

14

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or

15

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

16

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the

17

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The

19

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will

20

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

21

Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

22

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d

23

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

24

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

25

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,

26

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

2

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

3

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

4

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

5

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

6

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

7

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that

8

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

9

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

10

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

12

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

13

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

14

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

15

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

16

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

17

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

18

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

19

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

20

In the instant case, the parties seek to seal briefing and documents related to Plaintiffs’

21

motion for class certification. Although the motion for class certification is not dispositive, it is

22

more than tangentially related to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims because “a court’s class-

23

certification analysis must be ‘rigorous’ and may ‘entail some overlap with the merits of the

24

plaintiff’s underlying claim.’” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S.Ct. 1184,

25

1194 (2013) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011)). Thus, the

26

“compelling reasons” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see In re Google

27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1

Inc. Gmail Litig., 2014 WL 10537440, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (applying compelling

2

reasons standard to requests to seal related to motion for class certification).

3

The material the Court permits the parties to seal consists of a limited amount of employee

4

compensation data, confidential and trade secret compensation and business information, and

5

personal contact details for specific employees or applicants who are not parties to the case. The

6

parties’ request to seal this material satisfies the compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447

7

F.3d at 1179 (holding that compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally

8

exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use

9

of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

trade secrets”).
With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Document
Motion Standard
to Seal
215
Compelling Briefing and exhibits in
reasons
support of Plaintiffs’
motion for class
certification
253
Compelling Briefing and exhibits in
reasons
support of Defendants’
opposition to class
certification
269
Compelling Briefing and exhibits in
reasons
support of Plaintiffs’
reply in support of class
certification

Ruling
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions in
ECF No. 253.

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

21

A number of exhibits to the parties’ papers were provisionally filed under seal pursuant to

22

the Court’s sealing procedures in this case, ECF No. 177, but were not ultimately the subject of a

23
24
25
26

sealing request by the party whose information was contained in the exhibit. The parties noticed
one of these provisional sealing requests as a pending motion, ECF No. 239. The Court hereby
DENIES that motion. Within 7 days, the parties shall file public versions of all documents
originally filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s sealing procedures but for which the parties did

27
28

4
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

1

not seek sealing in ECF Nos. 215, 253, or 269.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: May 27, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No. 14-CV-04062-LHK
ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS