Theodore Broomfield, et al v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. et al

Filing 88

ORDER GRANTING #87 DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/22/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

THEODORE BROOMFIELD, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.

9
10

CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-01027-BLF

Defendants.

[Re: ECF 87]

12
Before the Court is Defendant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Administrative

13
14

Motion to File Under Seal portions of its Opposition/Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify

15

Class (ECF 85). See ECF 87. The time for Plaintiffs to file an opposition has passed and

16

Plaintiffs have not opposed. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s

17

motion to seal is GRANTED.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

20

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

23

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

24

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

25

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

26

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

27

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

28

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

1

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

2

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

3

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

4

II.

DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks to seal the following exhibits in support of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s

5

Motion to Certify Class: Exhibit C, Andrew Y. Lemon’s Expert Report (ECF 85-4); Exhibit O,

7

Andrew Y. Lemon’s Sur-Rebuttal Expert Report (ECF 85-16); and Exhibit Q, the declaration of

8

Edwin A. Smith (ECF 85-18). The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion (ECF 87) and

9

the declaration submitted in support thereof (Declaration of Tammy Webb (“Webb Decl.”), ECF

10

87-1). The Court’s ruling on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below. The Court finds

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

that Defendant has articulated compelling reasons and good cause for sealing and that the

12

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored.

13
14

ECF
No.

15

85-4

Andrew Y. Lemon’s GRANTED as to
Expert Report
¶¶ 74–84, 199;
Figs. 1, 2, 4A–F, 5A–
F, 6A–F, 7A–C, 11,
14A–E, 15A–E, 16A–
F, 17A–F, 18A–E,
19A–E

The proposed redacted portions
contain confidential business
information relating to Defendant’s
competitive beer pricing, disclosure of
which would harm Defendant. These
portions also contain third-party
confidential information, disclosure of
which would harm the third-party.
Webb Decl., ECF 87-1 ¶ 5.

85-16

Andrew Y. Lemon’s GRANTED as to
Sur-Rebuttal Expert ¶¶ 37–38, 59
Report

The proposed redacted portions
contain confidential business
information relating to Defendant’s
competitive beer pricing, disclosure of
which would harm Defendant. Webb
Decl., ECF 87-1 ¶ 5.

85-18

Declaration of
Edwin A. Smith

The proposed redacted portions
contain confidential business
information relating to Defendant’s
advertising and marketing budget,
disclosure of which would harm
Defendant. Webb Decl., ECF 87-1
¶ 6.

16
17
18
19

Document to be
Sealed:

Result

Reasoning

20
21
22
23
24
25

GRANTED as to ¶¶
3–7

26
27
28
2

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 87 is GRANTED. Because

2
Defendant has already filed unredacted versions of the relevant exhibits under seal and redacted
3
versions on the public docket, no further action is required.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: August 22, 2018
8
9
10

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3