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)

Download PDF
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

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?