Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. et al v. Sicoma North America, Inc.
Filing
118
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 112 Amended Motion to File Documents Under Seal; terminating Plaintiff's 107 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Plaintiff shall file all of the remaining exhibits in support of its opposition on the public docket. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/5/2015. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC./OBAYASHI
CORPORATION,
12
v.
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-2700-BAS(JLB)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
[ECF Nos. 107, 112]
OFFICINE MECCANICHE
GALLETTI-O.M.G. S.R.L., et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file portions of exhibits
19
supporting its opposition to Defendants’ summary-judgment motion under seal. To
20
date, Defendants have not opposed.
21
22
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to file
documents under seal. (ECF No. 112.)
23
24
I.
ANALYSIS
25
Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac.
26
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standard varies depending on
27
whether the documents are general judicial records or “private materials unearthed
28
during discovery.” Id. at 678-79.
-1-
13cv2700
1
“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos, 605
2
F.3d at 677-78. A party seeking to seal judicial records must show that “compelling
3
reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of
4
access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 678 (quoting Kamakana v.
5
City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation
6
marks omitted). This standard derives from the common-law right “to inspect and copy
7
public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id.; see also
8
Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). As long as the particular
9
document is not one that is “traditionally kept secret,” the presumption of access
10
“extends to pretrial documents filed in civil cases, including materials submitted in
11
connection with motions for summary judgment.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
12
Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). However, this right to access is not absolute.
13
“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and
14
justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle
15
for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote
16
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447
17
F.3d at 1178-79 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). But “[t]he mere fact that the
18
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or
19
exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
20
records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).
21
A less burdensome “good cause” standard applies when a party seeks to seal
22
“private materials unearthed during discovery,” which are not part of the judicial
23
record. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. The court applies the lower burden to such documents
24
because “[t]he cognizable public interest in judicial records that underlies the
25
‘compelling reasons’ standard does not exist for documents produced between private
26
litigants.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). Under such circumstances,
27
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs. Rule 26(c) provides that a trial court
28
may grant a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance,
-2-
13cv2700
1
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The relevant standard for
2
the purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information
3
from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the
4
need for confidentiality.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of
5
Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,
6
documents attached to non-dispositive motions must also meet the less burdensome
7
standard under Rule 26(c). Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (discussing Phillips, 307 F.3d at
8
1213); see also Pintos, 565 F.3d at 678-79; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.
9
“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion,
10
or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana,
11
447 F.3d at 1179. However, the basis of Plaintiff’s request to seal is that certain
12
documents were designated “confidential” in accordance with the protective order.
13
(Pl.’s Mot. 9:20–10:13.) Each exhibit identified for sealing, amounting to nineteen
14
exhibits in total, is an email communication where Plaintiff asserts “confidentiality of
15
this document” and contends that the document contains “commercially sensitive
16
information about non-parties.” (Id. at 3:5–8:21.) Plaintiff adds that several of these
17
exhibits should be sealed also due to pricing information, pricing negotiations, or third-
18
party names. (Id.) The existence of the protective order is inadequate to rebut the
19
presumption of access afforded to the public.
20
Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to explains how the identified documents might become a
21
vehicle for improper purposes. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. There is no
22
indication that the identified documents may be used to “gratify public spite, promote
23
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” See id.
See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136.
24
Because Plaintiff fails to provide a compelling reason to seal the identified
25
documents, Plaintiff also fails to justify sealing those documents. See Kamakana, 447
26
F.3d at 1178-79; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136.
27
//
28
//
-3-
13cv2700
1
II.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
2
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s amended motion to file
3
documents under seal. (ECF No. 112.) Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file all of the
4
remaining exhibits in support of its opposition on the public docket. Furthermore, the
5
Court also TERMINATES Plaintiff’s previously filed motion to file documents under
6
seal (ECF No. 107) in light of its explanation that that motion is substantively identical
7
to this one. (Pl.’s Mot. 1 n.1.)
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11
12
DATED: October 5, 2015
Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
13cv2700
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?