Towers v. Iger et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 25 PLAINTIFF'S AND 28 DEFENDANT'S SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/22/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

EUGENE F. TOWERS,

Case No. 15-cv-04609-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AND
DEFENDANT’S SEALING MOTIONS

v.
9
10

ROBERT A. IGER, et al.,

[Re: ECF 25, 28]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court are two administrative motions to file under seal portions of the parties’

13
14

respective briefing in connection with the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Verified

15

Stockholder Derivative Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to

16

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF 25. Defendant seeks to seal portions of its

17

Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. ECF 28. For the reasons stated below,

18

both motions are DENIED without prejudice.

19
20

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

21

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal portions of documents: a

23

“compelling reasons” standard, which applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard,

24

which applies to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1179. Motions that are technically nondispositive

25

may still require the party to meet the “compelling reasons” standard when the motion is more

26

than tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

27

809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The compelling reasons standard is invoked “even if the

28

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.”

1

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing

2

court files generally exist when such “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper

3

purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate

4

libelous statements, or release trade secrets,” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

5

U.S. 589, 598 (1978)), or where court files may serve “as sources of business information that

6

might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Nixon, 435 U.S at 598-99. However, “[t]he mere

7

fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or

8

exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

9

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must follow Civil Local Rule 79-5,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

12

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a

13

document designated confidential by another party, the burden of articulating compelling reasons

14

for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

15

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s Motion

16

A.

17

Plaintiff fails to meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing portions of its Opposition

18

to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. According to Plaintiff, the portions he seeks to seal were

19

designated by Defendant Disney as confidential pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. See ECF

20

25-1, Nicoud Decl. ¶¶4-5. As the designating party, Defendant Disney carries the burden of

21

articulating the compelling reasons to seal the document. Disney, however, did not submit a

22

declaration in support of sealing this information.

23

Under Civil L.R. 79-5(e), if a party seeks to file under seal a document designated as

24

confidential by the opposing party, the party must identify the portions of the document that

25

contain the designated confidential material and identify the party that has designated the material

26

as confidential. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). Within four days, the designating party must file a declaration

27

as required by Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.

28

Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Here, Defendant did not file a declaration establishing that all of the
2

1

designated material is sealable. Additionally, a designation of “Confidential –Attorney’s Eyes

2

Only” is insufficient to establish the documents are sealable. See e.g., MMCA Grp. Ltd. v.

3

Hewlett-Packard Co., 2008 WL 5411340, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
Defendant’s Motion

4

B.

5

Defendant Disney seeks to seal portions of its Reply that quote or reference the portions of
the complaint that this Court previously ordered to be filed under seal. Defendant Disney fails to

7

meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing portions of its Reply in Support of its Motion to

8

Dismiss the Complaint. In Disney’s supporting declaration, the only reason given for sealing the

9

requested information is that those portions were previously sealed by the Court. ECF 28-1,

10

Horvath Decl. ¶ 3. However, Disney still bears the burden of meeting the compelling reasons

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

standard, “even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or

12

protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

13

III.

14

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing motion at ECF 25 and Defendant Disney’s

15

sealing motion at ECF 28 are DENIED without prejudice. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for

16

any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or

17

subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must

18

file the unredacted (or lesser-redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and

19

no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

20

Accordingly, the parties may submit additional declarations in support of the sealing

21

motions by no later than March 25, 2016, at which point the Court will reconsider the motion. If

22

no additional declaration is submitted, the parties must file unredacted versions of Plaintiff’s

23

Opposition and Defendant’s Reply by no later than March 31, 2016.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
3