Frost v. LG Corporation et al

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING 73 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/13/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

A. FROST, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05206-BLF

Plaintiffs,
7
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

8
9

LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.,

[Re: ECF 73]

Defendants.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court is Defendants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Display America, Inc.

12
13

(“LG”)’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the documents in support of their

14

sanction motion. ECF 73. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

15
16

I.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2
3

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

4

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

5

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

6

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

7
8

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

9

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party
seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed LG’s sealing motion and declarations of James Kylstra and Daniel

13
14

D. Birk in support thereof. According to Kylstra’s declaration, the redacted portions should be

15

sealed because they contain competitively sensitive information regarding the hiring and recruiting

16

practices of LG. Kylstra Decl., ECF 73-1 ¶¶ 3-5. Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants Samsung

17

Elecronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. do not

18

oppose this motion. Id. ¶ 6; Birk Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 73-2.

19

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

20

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

21

the redacted portions contain competitive and proprietary information that LG use for their

22

competitive advantage, they are appropriately sealable under the “good cause” standard.

23

III.

24

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 73 is GRANTED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: February 13, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2