Frost v. LG Corporation et al

Filing 108

ORDER GRANTING 96 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/3/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

A. FROST, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,

LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-05206-BLF

Defendants.

12
Before the Court is Defendants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Display America, Inc.

13
14

(collectively, “LG Defendants”)’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of their reply in

15

support of the sanction motion. ECF 96. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

18

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

19

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

20

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

21

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

22

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

23

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

24

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

25

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

26

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

27

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

28

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

1

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

2

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

3
4

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

5

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

6

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).

8
9

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local
Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

12

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

13

II.

DISCUSSION

14

The Court has reviewed LG Defendants’ sealing motion and declaration of Daniel Birk in

15

support thereof. According to Birk’s declaration, the redacted portions should be sealed because

16

they contain competitively sensitive information regarding the hiring and recruiting practices of

17

LG Defendants. Birk Decl., ECF 96-1 ¶¶ 3-4. This sealing motion is not opposed by any party.

18

The Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies, as LG Defendants’ sanction

19

motion is “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.

20

Because the redacted portions contain competitive and proprietary information that LG

21

Defendants use for their competitive advantage, they are appropriately sealable under the “good

22

cause” standard.

23

III.

24

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 96 is GRANTED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: April 3, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2