Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co. et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING 44 , 55 , 60 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/28/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JUICERO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

ITASTE CO., et al.,

[Re: ECF 44, 55, 60]

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-01921-BLF

12
Before the Court are parties’ motions to file under seal portions of their briefing in

13
14

connection to a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF 44, 55, 60. For the reasons discussed

15

below, the Court GRANTS the motions.

16
17

I.

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

18

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

19

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

20

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

21

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

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

24

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

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

28

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

1

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

2

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

3

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

5

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

6

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

7

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

8

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

9

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

12

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.

13

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

14

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

15

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

16

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

17

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

18

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

19

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

20

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

21

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

22

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

23

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

24

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

25

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

26

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

27

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

28

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by
2

1

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

2

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

3

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

4

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

5

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motions relate to a motion for preliminary injunction, which is more

6
7

than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motions are resolved under the

8

compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-2 (holding that “public access

9

will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” and

10

finding that a “motion for preliminary injunction is more than tangentially related to the merits”).
With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

ECF
No.
44-5

Document to be
Sealed
Defendant Froothie
USA LLC
(“Froothie”)’s
Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary
Injunction (“Opp’n”)

44-7

Declaration of Roy
Nawfal ISO
Froothie’s Opp’n

55-5

Defendant iTaste
GRANTED as
Co., Ltd. (“iTaste”)’s to highlighted
Opposition to
portions.
Plaintiff’s Motion
for Preliminary
Injunction (“Opp’n”)

14
15
16
17

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

The highlighted portions at 11:11-12; 23:2025 contain confidential financial and business
information, the disclosure of which could
harm Froothie’s competitiveness. See Ching
Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF 44-1; Nawfal Decl. ¶ 3,
ECF 44-2.
Although Plaintiff as the designating party has
failed to provide a declaration in support of
sealing the highlighted portions at 11:25-26;
12:20, 22, the information sought to be sealed
had previously been subject to a sealing order
at ECF 35.
The highlighted portions contain confidential
financial and business information, the
disclosure of which would harm Froothie’s
competitiveness. See Ching Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, ECF
44-1; Nawfal Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 44-2.
The highlighted portions contain confidential
financial and business information, the
disclosure of which would harm iTaste’s
competitiveness. See Liu Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 55-2.

18
19
20
21

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

55-7

Declaration of
Yitong Liu ISO
iTaste’s Opp’n

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

60-4

Plaintiff Juicero, Inc.
(“Juicero”)’s Reply

GRANTED as
to highlighted
portions.

2
3
4
5

The highlighted portions contain confidential
financial and business information, the
disclosure of which would harm iTaste’s
competitiveness. See Liu Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 55-2.
The highlighted portions contain confidential
financial and business information, the
disclosure of which would harm the
competitiveness of Froothie and iTaste. See
Ching Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 65.

6

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 44, 55, 60 are GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: June 28, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4