Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC et al

Filing 376

ORDER re: Fiber Research International, LLC and Shimizu Chemical Corp.'s 333 Joint Motion to File Documents Under Seal. It is ordered that the Court grants in part and denies in part ORI's motion for leave to file documents under seal in ECF Nos. 216 and 236, and grants the motion in its entirety for ECF Nos. 221, 223, 250, 303, and 318. Where portions of briefs, exhibits, or other documents have been sealed, and if not already available on the public docket, FRI must a lso file these documents with the appropriate redactions on the public docket. More broadly, any documents where leave has not been granted to file under seal, such as documents where FRI has conceded sealing is not warranted, must also be filed on the public docket. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 7/24/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
LLC,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17

Case No. 15-cv-595-BAS(MDD)

v.
FIBER RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

ORDER RE: FIBER RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND
SHIMIZU CHEMICAL CORP.’S
JOINT MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
[ECF No. 333]

Defendants.

18
19
20

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

21
22

Presently before the Court is Defendants Fiber Research International, LLC

23

(“FRI”) and Shimizu Chemical Corp.’s (“Shimizu”) renewed motion to file certain

24

documents under seal.1 FRI states that they met and conferred with Plaintiff Obesity

25

Research Institute, LLC (“ORI”) and devised a plan to renew their requests for leave

26

to file documents under seal, which includes “each party . . . re-apply[ing] to file

27
28

Now that Shimizu has been dismissed from this action, the Court will refer to Defendants
collectively also as “FRI” for the purposes of this order.
1

–1–

15cv595

1

under seal documents relating to their own confidentiality designations, regardless of

2

which party initially applied to seal the documents, since each party is in the best

3

position to know why their respective information should be maintained as

4

confidential.” (Persinger Decl. ¶ 5.)

5

The Court will refer to each motion by its Electronic Case Filing number

6

(“ECF No.”) on the docket for the purposes of this order as it previously did in the

7

March 17, 2017 Order, a format which FRI has also adopted in its renewed motion.

8

Both parties also did not re-submit the documents they seek to file under seal in both

9

redacted and unredacted form, a requirement for this district’s sealing procedure in

10

civil cases. This failure frequently made it difficult for the Court to determine

11

precisely what the parties sought to be sealed, particularly when the parties sought to

12

adjust redactions to existing documents.

13
14

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

15

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy

16

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v.

17

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record

18

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the

19

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

20

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

21

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although

22

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure

23

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of

24

justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.

25

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

26

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the

27

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet

28

this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that
–2–

15cv595

1

is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809

2

F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the

3

merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the

4

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good

5

cause” standard applies. Id.

6

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest

7

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might

8

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify

9

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

10

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However,

11

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

12

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

13

court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal

14

documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon

15

consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon,

16

435 U.S. at 599.

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), generally, provides the “good cause”

18

standard for the purposes of sealing documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

19

The test applied is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from

20

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need

21

for confidentiality.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

22

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213

23

(9th Cir. 2002)). Under Rule 26(c), only “a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ .

24

. . is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents[.]” In re

25

Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

26

Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a

27

“particularized showing” of good cause). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

28

by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”
–3–

15cv595

1

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover,

2

a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause” for sealing

3

particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476;

4

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103

5

(9th Cir. 1999).

6
7

II.

ANALYSIS

8

A.

ECF No. 216

9

In its renewed motion with respect to ECF No. 216, FRI request leave to file

10

under seal Exhibits 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11 in addition to portions of the memorandum in

11

support of ORI’s motion to exclude Dr. Fahey. As FRI describes, these exhibits and

12

portions of the memorandum generally appear to present or discuss proprietary

13

testing methods. Though the entirety of Exhibits 9 and 11 warrant sealing, FRI fails

14

to present compelling reasons that the entirety of both deposition transcripts and

15

portions of the memorandum warrant the same treatment because the scope of the

16

request is too broad. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

17

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART FRI’s

18

motion for leave to file under seal the documents related to ECF No. 216.

19

Specifically, FRI is only given leave to file Exhibits 9 and 11 under seal. FRI is may

20

file a revised motion for leave to file the remaining exhibits and memorandum under

21

seal, but the revised motion must specify portions that present compelling reasons

22

for sealing.

23
24

B.

ECF No. 221

25

Similar to the reasons justifying sealing Exhibits 9 and 11 in ECF No. 216—

26

namely, that portions sought to be sealed contain proprietary information or other

27

information that warrants sealing—FRI sufficiently provides compelling reasons to

28

file under seal specific portions of ORI’s opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude the
–4–

15cv595

1

report and testimony of Dr. Laura Lerner. Thus, the Court GRANTS FRI’s motion

2

for leave to file under seal portions of ORI’s opposition brief. (ECF No. 221.) If it is

3

not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file the opposition brief

4

with the appropriate redactions on the public docket.

5
6

C.

ECF No. 223

7

For the same reasons the Court granted FRI leave to file under seal portions of

8

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to

9

file portions of ORI’s opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude ORI’s non-retained

10

experts related. (ECF No. 223.) If it is not already available on the public docket, FRI

11

must also file ORI’s opposition brief with the appropriate redactions on the public

12

docket.

13
14

D.

ECF No. 236

15

For the same reasons the Court rejected leave to file under seal the entirety of

16

two deposition transcripts with respect to ECF No. 216, the Court finds that FRI fails

17

to present compelling reasons to seal the entirety of Exhibits 4 and 5. That said, FRI

18

presents compelling reasons to seal certain portions of ORI’s opposition to Shimizu’s

19

motion to dismiss that discusses proprietary information.

20

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART FRI’s

21

request. (ECF No. 236.) Specifically, FRI is only given leave to file under seal

22

portions of ORI’s opposition brief. If it is not already available on the public docket,

23

FRI must also file the opposition brief with the appropriate redactions on the public

24

docket.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
–5–

15cv595

1

E.

ECF No. 250

2

For the same reasons the Court granted FRI leave to file under seal portions of

3

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to

4

file portions of ORI’s reply to FRI’s motion to exclude Dr. Fahey. (ECF No. 250.) If

5

it is not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file the reply brief with

6

the appropriate redactions on the public docket.

7
8

F.

ECF No. 303

9

For the same reasons the Court granted FRI leave to file under seal portions of

10

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to

11

file portions of ORI’s surreply in opposition to Shimizu’s motion to dismiss. (ECF

12

No. 303.) If it is not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file ORI’s

13

surreply brief with the appropriate redactions on the public docket.

14
15

G.

ECF No. 318

16

For the same reasons the Court granted FRI leave to file under seal portions of

17

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to

18

file portions of ORI’s reply in support of its objection to the magistrate judge’s order

19

regarding the motion to compel reproduction of documents (ECF No. 320). If it is

20

not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file ORI’s reply brief with

21

the appropriate redactions on the public docket.

22
23

III.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

24

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

25

PART ORI’s motion for leave to file documents under seal in ECF Nos. 216 and

26

236, and GRANTS the motion in its entirety for ECF Nos. 221, 223, 250, 303, and

27

318.

28

//
–6–

15cv595

1

Where portions of briefs, exhibits, or other documents have been sealed, and

2

if not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file these documents with

3

the appropriate redactions on the public docket. More broadly, any documents where

4

leave has not been granted to file under seal, such as documents where FRI has

5

conceded sealing is not warranted, must also be filed on the public docket.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: July 24, 2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–7–

15cv595