Newmark Realty Capital, Inc. v. BGC Partners, Inc. et al

Filing 679

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTIES' DAUBERT BRIEFING AND EXHIBITS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/28/2018. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC., Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants. 10 OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PARTIES’ DAUBERT BRIEFING AND EXHIBITS [Re: ECF 593, 598, 609, 615, 620] 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff and Defendants’ administrative motions to file under seal 13 portions of their briefing and exhibits in connection with each side’s respective Daubert motions. 14 ECF 593, 598, 609, 615, 620. For the reasons stated below, the sealing motions are DENIED 15 without prejudice. 16 17 18 19 20 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 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 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 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 28 However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 1 mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 2 their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 3 Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 4 merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 5 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 6 for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 7 often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 8 to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 9 Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 12 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 13 specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 14 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery 15 may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents 16 sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties 17 to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine 18 whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference 19 to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 20 confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 21 In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 22 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 23 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 24 “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 25 the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 26 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 27 submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 28 material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 2 1 sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 2 highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 3 redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 4 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 5 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 6 7 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed Defendants’ sealing motions at ECF 593 and 620; Plaintiff’s 8 sealing motions at ECF 598, 609, and 615; and the declarations of the designating parties 9 submitted in support thereof. Each sealing motion is in connection with a Daubert motion, opposition brief, or reply brief. In general, the Court finds that the parties have failed to articulate 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 compelling reasons to seal the submitted documents or have failed to narrowly tailor the proposed 12 redactions. 13 For example, Defendants request to seal portions of Defendants’ Daubert Motion To 14 Exclude Evidence or Testimony from Jeffrey Kinrich and Plaintiff’s Alleged Damages Theories 15 (ECF 593-4). ECF 593. However, even a cursory review of the portions requested to be sealed 16 reveals numerous instances of sealing overreach. See, e.g., ECF 593-4 at 1–10 (highlighted 17 portions throughout the motion that appear untethered to sealable material or overbroad). As 18 another example, Plaintiff requests to seal wholesale Exhibit 1 (Kinrich Report appendices and 19 exhibits) to the Declaration of Yasamin Parsafar in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 20 Defendants’ Daubert Motion to exclude evidence or testimony from Kinrich (ECF 609-3). ECF 21 609. Here too, the request to seal is not narrowly tailored to only the sensitive material that 22 Plaintiff claims public disclosure of which would cause harm to Plaintiff. See Parsafar Decl. ¶ 2, 23 ECF 609-1 (identifying the types of “sensitive material” the public disclosure of which would 24 cause harm to Plaintiff). 25 It is not the Court’s function to wade through overbroad sealing motions in search of 26 sealable portions that may be contained within a sweeping request. All sealing requests must be 27 narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and a blanket protective order that 28 allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny 3 1 to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5. The 2 parties are advised to consider the Court’s statements above—which pertain to examples only and 3 are not to be considered comprehensive review—with respect to each specific document/portion 4 for which sealing is requested. Sealing will not be permitted to run amok. 5 III. 6 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff and Defendants’ sealing motions at ECF 593, 598, 609, 7 615, and 620 are denied without prejudice to narrowly tailored and properly justified requests. 8 Any renewed request must be filed on or before December 5, 2018. If no renewed request is 9 filed by that date, the sealing request will be denied with prejudice. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 Dated: November 28, 2018 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?