Towers v. Iger et al

Filing 67

ORDER GRANTING 65 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/28/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2016)

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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.
9
10

ROBERT A. IGER, et al.,

[Re: ECF 65]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file portions of their reply in support

13
14

of their motion to dismiss (the “Reply”) under seal. Mot., ECF 65. For the reasons discussed

15

below, the motion is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

21

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

22

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

23

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

24

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

25

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

26

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

27

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

28

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

1

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

2

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

3

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

5

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

6

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

7

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

8

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

9

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

12

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.

13

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

14

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

15

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

16

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

17

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

18

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

19

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

26

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

27

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

28

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2

1

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

2

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

5
6

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion at issue relates to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which is

7

more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the

8

compelling reasons standard.

9

Defendants seek to seal portions of their Reply that relate to matters that the Court
previously sealed in the amended complaint, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

opposition. Horvath Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 65. These portions relate to meetings of the Company’s

12

board of directors during which the directors discussed confidential matters regarding the

13

Company’s acquisition of Pixar, Inc., including the board of directors’ negotiations, strategic

14

considerations for entering into the acquisition, and post-acquisition operational issues. Id. ¶ 3.

15

These matters were not disclosed at the time of the acquisition of Pixar, and the Company has

16

maintained the confidentiality of that information ever since. Id.

17

The Court finds these reasons compelling and the request narrowly tailored. Accordingly,

18

the Court GRANTS Defendants’ sealing motion as to the identified portions of Defendants’

19

Reply. See Mot. 1.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: December 28, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3