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)

Download PDF
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

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?