Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 73

MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (Eggleton, Keith) (atty contacted re cert of service) (lmt).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEITH E. EGGLETON, State Bar No. 159842 COLLEEN BAL, State Bar No. 167637 DALE R. BISH, State Bar No. 235390 EDMUNDO C. MARQUEZ, State Bar No. 268424 AMIR STEINHART, State Bar No. 275037 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 Attorneys for Defendant FERRERO U.S.A, INC. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 In re FERRERO LITIGATION 12 CASE NO.: 11 CV 0205 H (CAB) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE UNREDACTED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION OF BERNARD F. KREILMANN IN SUPPORT OF FERRERO U.S.A, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ………………………. Date: November 7, 2011 Time: 10:30 a.m. Courtroom 13 Before: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff 24 25 26 27 28 FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 11 CV 0205 H 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 79.2 of the Local Rules for the Southern 3 District of California, Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. (“Ferrero”) hereby moves for an order allowing it to 4 file under seal the unredacted version of Ferrero U.S.A., Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 5 for Class Certification (“the Opposition”) as well as the declaration of Bernard F. Kreilmann in 6 Support of Ferrero U.S.A., Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. 7 BACKGROUND 8 As the Court is aware, this putative class action involves allegations by two named 9 plaintiffs pertaining to the marketing and sales of Ferrero’s popular hazelnut spread, Nutella. As 10 a privately held company (Compl. ¶ 13) that operates in an extremely competitive industry, 11 Ferrero regards its financial results, sales information and marketing strategies as confidential 12 and proprietary – the disclosure of which “could be potentially prejudicial to its business or 13 operations.” See Dkt No. 32 (“Protective Order”) at 2; Kreilmann Decl. ¶ 19. Indeed, Ferrero 14 considers certain information that has been produced in this litigation to be highly confidential as 15 set forth in the Protective Order and therefore subject to additional protections. Id. at 2 16 (“Confidential – For Counsel Only”). 17 On August 1, 2011, plaintiffs moved for certification of a nationwide class and submitted, 18 among other things, confidential information of Ferrero, including (1) information pertaining to 19 the formulation of Nutella; (2) commercially sensitive financial information and data; and (3) 20 documents reflecting Ferrero’s confidential marketing strategies. 21 On August 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to file certain exhibits under seal, 22 along with a redacted version of plaintiffs’ memorandum, to protect Ferrero’s confidential 23 information. Dkt. 57. On August 17, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. 65. In 24 doing so, the Court held that “good cause exists” to seal the documents containing Ferrero’s 25 sensitive information. Id. at 2. 26 Ferrero opposes plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and, in connection with its 27 opposition papers, is filing declarations from its Chief Executive Officer and President, Bernard 28 Kreilmann and the Category Manager for Nutella, Karl Krohn, which provide the Court with FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL -1- 11 CV 0205 H 4475774 1 facts regarding Ferrero’s operations, marketing and sales information. This information is 2 necessary for the Court’s analysis as to whether plaintiffs have satisfied their burden in moving 3 for a nationwide class. One of the declarations (Mr. Kreilmann’s) contains confidential and 4 proprietary information of Ferrero, which, if disclosed, “could be potentially prejudicial to 5 [Ferrero’s] business or operations.” Dkt No. 32 at 2; Kreilmann Decl. ¶ 19. As a result, Ferrero 6 seeks to file this declaration, along with its unredacted memorandum, under seal. Ferrero is 7 filing public versions of those documents that will contain a minimum number of redactions to 8 protect only that information that Ferrero regards as confidential or highly confidential. 9 10 ARGUMENT I. 11 LEGAL STANDARD Although courts have held that there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court 12 records[,]” (Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)), courts 13 recognize that public access is often outweighed by the need to protect a party’s confidential and 14 proprietary information so long as the restriction is narrowly tailored. Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. 15 United States Dist. Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. 16 Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)); Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 17 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 18 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might become a 19 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.”). 20 II. 21 THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO SEAL DOCUMENTS REFLECTING FERRERO’S CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION 22 Consistent with the Court’s August 17 Order, this motion seeks to protect Ferrero’s 23 commercially sensitive financial information. Dkt. No. 65 (“The Court concludes that good cause 24 exists to seal the requested documents[,]” which contain Ferrero’s commercially sensitive 25 financial information). In seeking this protection, Ferrero is mindful of the public’s right to access 26 and – as a result – has exercised restraint in redacting the documents that are to be filed publicly. 27 Only one footnote in the brief and only the confidential financial information present in the 28 Kreilmann declaration have been redacted. FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL -2- 11 CV 0205 H 4475774 1 In addition to this court’s August 17 order, other courts have long-recognized that 2 protecting a company’s confidential commercial information can outweigh the public’s right to 3 access. See Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555, n. 4 (C.D. Cal. 2007) 4 (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)[(1)(G)] does not limit its reach to ‘trade secrets,’ but also allows for 5 protection of ‘confidential commercial information.’ Customer/supplier lists and sales and 6 revenue information qualify as ‘confidential commercial information.’”). Indeed, such concerns 7 are even more pressing where a company, like Ferrero, is not publicly traded and its financial 8 results are not generally made public. Therefore, Ferrero seeks to restrict access to the following 9 portions of Ferrero’s filings that reflect its propriety financial information: 10  11 12 Declaration of Bernard F. Kreilmann in Support of Ferrero U.S.A., Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, paragraphs 19 through 29.  Opposition, page 7, footnote 5. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons discussed above, the Court should grant Ferrero’s Motion to File Under 15 Seal the unredacted versions of Ferrero US.A., Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 16 Certification and the declaration of Bernard F. Kreilmann in Support of Ferrero U.S.A., Inc.’s 17 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Ferrero will also electronically file 18 public versions of its Motion and Memorandum with confidential information and exhibits 19 redacted. 20 21 Dated: October 10, 2011 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 22 23 24 By: /s/ Keith E. Eggleton Keith E. Eggleton 25 Attorneys for Defendant Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. 26 27 28 FERRERO U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL -3- 11 CV 0205 H 4475774

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?