Hilsley v. General Mills, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 47 Defendants' Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/23/2020. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CRYSTAL HILSLEY, et al.,

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

CLASS ACTION

GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al.,

15

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO SEAL

Defendants.

16
17

In this putative class action alleging deceptive food labeling, Defendants filed a

18

motion to seal portions of the Expert Declaration of Dolf DeRovira (“Expert Report”).

19

(Doc. no. 47 (“Mtn. to Seal”).) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. The Court decides

20

this matter on the briefs without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1.d.1. For the reasons

21

stated below, Defendant’s motion is denied.

22

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public

23

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner

24

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). Lack of opposition to a motion to seal

25

therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

26

331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants, as the parties seeking to seal

27

judicial records, bear the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access to court

28

records. Id. at 1135. The showing required to meet the burden depends upon whether the
1
3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM

1

Expert Report relates to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a

2

case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

3

If it is, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98.

4

The Expert Report was filed with Defendants’ non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion

5

for preliminary approval of class action settlement. (Doc. no. 46 (“Non-opposition”).)

6

Plaintiffs’ motion includes consideration whether a class action should be certified.

7

Although in ruling on class certification courts do not decide the merits of the case, the

8

inquiry overlaps with the merits inquiry. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct.

9

2541, 2552 & n.6 (2011). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is sufficiently related to the

10

merits to warrant the application of the “compelling reasons” standard. See Ctr. for Auto

11

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99. Defendant concedes as much. (See Mtn. to Seal at 3.)

12

To meet this burden, the moving party must make a “particularized showing.”

13

Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). This

14

entails “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. at

15

1178-79; see also Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)

16

(“[T]he party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm

17

will result if no [protection] is granted.” (emphasis added)).

18

Defendants contend that the Expert Report contains references to “highly

19

proprietary product formulas,” and that public release of such information could cause

20

Defendants to suffer significant competitive disadvantage. (Mtn. to Seal at 3.) “The

21

publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been

22

considered a factor that would overcome the strong presumption” in favor of public

23

access to judicial records. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir.

24

2011). Nevertheless, sealing of court records requires a particularized showing. Id.; see

25

also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Defendants’ motion is general and conclusory. It

26

does not address either the elements necessary to show the trade secret nature of the

27

formulas, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), nor specific prejudice or harm that would result

28

from disclosure. No declaration is provided in support of Defendants’ contention.
2
3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM

1

Moreover, upon review of the redacted and unredacted versions of the Expert Report

2

(docs. no. 46-6, 48), it is apparent that Defendants request the sealing of more than just

3

proprietary product formulas or specific discussion of the formulas. Accordingly,

4

Defendants have not made the requisite showing of compelling reasons. It is therefore

5

denied. Because the unredacted Expert Report (doc. no. 48) was lodged pending order on

6

motion to seal, see Elec. Case Filing Admin. Policies and Proc. Manual § 2(j), it will not

7

be considered.

8

The Court notes that it is doubtful that the redacted portions of the Expert Report,

9

including the product formula, is relevant. In their Non-opposition, which was publicly

10

filed and not included in the Motion to Seal, Defendants quote from the Expert Report

11

and discuss expert opinions to the extent necessary to support their Non-opposition

12

arguments. (See doc. no. 46 at 2, 7-8.) Defendants should evaluate the publicly-filed

13

redacted version of the Expert Report (doc. no. 46-6) in light of the arguments they raise

14

in their Non-opposition to determine whether reference to the redacted portions of the

15

report, and a related motion to seal, are necessary at all.

16

It is hereby ordered as follows:

17

1.

Defendants’ Motion to Seal (doc. no. 47) is denied.

18

2.

The unredacted Expert Report (lodged under seal as doc. no. 48) will not be

19
20

considered.
3.

If Defendants wish to file another motion to seal the Expert Report, any such

21

motion must be filed no later than September 30, 2020, and must be supported by an

22

appropriate showing.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2020

25
26
27
28
3
3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM