Domaine Carneros, Ltd v. Lea Trading LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 19 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/4/2024. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

DOMAINE CARNEROS, LTD,
Plaintiff,

8

LEA TRADING LLC, et al.,

[Re: ECF Nos. 14, 19]

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9
10

Case No. 24-cv-01834-BLF

Before the court is Plaintiff Domaine Carneros, Ltd.’s Administrative Motion to File

12
13

Under Seal. ECF No. 19. Defendant Lea Trading LLC opposes. ECF No. 20. For the reasons

14

described below, the administrative motion is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO

15

SHOW CAUSE why it should not be compelled to disclose the unredacted exhibit to Defendant.

16

I.

17

BACKGROUND
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer Venue arguing, inter

18

alia, that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction and that venue is improper. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff

19

filed an opposition with redacted exhibits, see ECF No. 16-2 at 4-7, that did not comply with the

20

Civil Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5; Standing Order § V. The

21

Court ordered Plaintiff to file unredacted exhibits on the public docket or an administrative motion

22

to seal. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed the instant administrative motion on May 22, 2024, seeking to

23

seal the address. ECF No. 19. Defendant filed an opposition, arguing that “Counsel for

24

Defendant has requested Plaintiff’s counsel to release the information, but Plaintiff’s counsel

25

refuses to do so.” ECF No. 20.

26
27
28

II.

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

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

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

2

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

3

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

4

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

5

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

6

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

7

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

8

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

9

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits

10

of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

17

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

18

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

19

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

20

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

A.

23

Plaintiff seeks to seal the personal information in Exhibit A of the Declaration of

Public Disclosure

24

Francesca Peralta in Support of its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Peralta Decl.”).

25

Mot. at 9. Plaintiff argues that “The portions that Plaintiff seeks to seal contain the personal email

26

address, personal shipping address and personal billing address of a nonparty declarant.” Mot. at

27

3. Plaintiff writes that the information should be sealed because “[t]he redaction of such personal

28

contact information will protect the declarant’s privacy interests and protect her from harm.” Id.
2

1

Plaintiff argues that the requested redactions are narrowly tailored. Id.

2

The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to redact the public version of the document.

3

Richter v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 22-CV-04795-BLF, 2023 WL 5663217, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30,

4

2023) (“District courts within the Ninth Circuit have found that a party’s legitimate interest in

5

ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court

6

filings.”) (emphasis added); Hernandez v. County of Monterey, No. 13-cv-02354, 2023 WL

7

4688522, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal personal contact

8

information). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

ECF or Ex. No. Document

Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

11

Ex. A at ECF
No. 16-2

Highlighted
portions at 4-5.

12

Exhibit A to
Peralta Decl.

GRANTED, as it contains the declarant’s
personal contact information.

13

B.

14

Disclosure to Defendant is a different story. Defendant challenges this Court’s jurisdiction

Disclosure to Defendant

15

and venue in this district in a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, and Plaintiff attached the Peralta

16

declaration and exhibit as evidence in support of its opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

17

But it is not clear what authority Plaintiff has to support its interest in withholding the redacted

18

information from Defendant. Plaintiff must make this showing if it intends to withhold the

19

redacted information from Defendant.

20

IV.

ORDER

21

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. Plaintiff’s motion to seal at ECF No. 19 is GRANTED.

23

2. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before June 18, 2024, why

24

it should not be compelled to disclose an unredacted copy of Exhibit A to Defendant.

25
26
27
28

Dated: June 4, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
3