Chung v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 188

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S EX PARTE MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 19 THROUGH 22 AND ADDITIONAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. RITSEMA IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES re: #187 . Signed by JUDGE J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT on 8/20/2015. (afc) Related document: Defendant Ford Motor Company's M/PSJ on Punitive Damages: docket entry no. #157 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SONG YI CHUNG,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
_______________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 13-00604 JMS/RLP
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO SEAL
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS 19
THROUGH 22 AND ADDITIONAL
DECLARATION OF SCOTT A.
RITSEMA IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS 19 THROUGH 22
AND ADDITIONAL DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. RITSEMA IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the court is Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Defendant”
or “Ford”) Ex Parte Motion to Seal Plaintiff Song Yi Chung’s (“Plaintiff”)
Exhibits 19 Through 22 and Additional Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema,1 in
support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

1

Plaintiff filed a Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema that includes ¶¶ 1-21 and identifies
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-18. Doc. No. 177. The lodged Additional Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema
includes ¶¶ 22-26 and identifies Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19-23. As explained below, because Exhibit
23 will be filed publicly, Plaintiff must file ¶ 26 publicly.

Judgment. Doc. No. 187. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this
matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. For the reasons set forth below,
the Motion is GRANTED.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Background
On February 26, 2014, a Stipulated Protective Order (Documents)

was entered barring the parties from publicly disclosing documents that have been
designated confidential. Doc. No. 42. On June 15, 2015, Defendant filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims for Punitive Damages.
Doc. No. 157. On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Opposition, along with
supporting declarations and exhibits, Doc. Nos. 172-76, and a Motion to Seal
Exhibits 19 - 23 and the Additional Declaration of Scott. A. Ritsema. Doc. No.
171. Plaintiff sought to seal these documents, which Defendant designated as
confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, and provided the
documents to the court for an in camera review. The court denied Plaintiff’s
Motion and a subsequent Ex Parte Motion to Seal these documents, see Doc. Nos.
180, 185, for failure to comply with Local Rule 83.12 and the standard set forth in
Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

2

Because the information and reasoning necessary to support a motion
to seal these particular documents lies with Defendant, on August 10, 2015, the
court provided Defendant an opportunity to file an appropriate motion. Doc. No.
185. Defendant filed the instant Ex Parte Motion to Seal on August 13, 2015,
Doc. No. 187, and lodged the documents it seeks to seal.
By the instant Motion, Defendant seeks to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19
through 222 and the Additional Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema. Roger A.
Burnett, an engineer in Defendant’s Design Analysis Department describes these
documents as follows:
Exhibit 19 - “a draft PowerPoint reflecting design considerations related to
the seats and seatbelts in 2015 Ford Mustang vehicles . . . [that] contains detailed
descriptions of Ford’s design decision making process as well as engineering
drawings, testing, and the tools used by Ford in vehicle design [and] provides a
detailed window into Ford vehicle development which is also applied to other
vehicle programs.” Doc. No. 187-2, Burnett Decl. ¶ 7.
Exhibit 20 - “an email exchange between Ford employees discussing
language to be used in describing the function of restraints components in 2015

2

Defendant does not oppose the public filing of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 23.
3

Ford Mustangs [which] reflects Ford’s design and development process related to
current model year vehicles.” Id. ¶ 8.
Exhibit 21 - “an investigation into seatbelt designs for Ford Mustang
vehicles” including “a detailed breakdown of Ford testing as well as Ford’s
benchmarking of competitor vehicles.” Id.¶ 9.
Exhibit 22 - “a detailed description of the primary function of certain
restraint components in 2015 Ford Mustang vehicles as well as Ford design
considerations and drawings.” Id. ¶ 10.
Additional Ritsema Declaration - a detailed discussion revealing the
contents of the documents included in Exhibits 19 through 22. Id. ¶ 11.
B.

Legal Standard
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.12(a), a party may seek leave to file under

seal any document “if it contains confidential, restricted, or graphic information
and/or images.” However, based on the “general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” there is a
“strong presumption” in favor of maintaining public access to judicial records that
are not of a type “traditionally kept secret for important policy reasons.”3

3

Records that are traditionally kept secret include “grand jury transcripts and warrant
materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.
4

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. This strong presumption “applies fully to . . .
motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Id. at 1179.
A party seeking to seal attachments in connection with a dispositive
motion “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the
‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178. In so doing, the party “must
‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings’ that
outweigh . . . public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (quoting Foltz v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The
“compelling reasons” standard applies “even if the dispositive motion, or its
attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1179.
Generally, compelling reasons that are sufficient to overcome this
strong presumption exist when:
such “court files might have become a vehicle for
improper purposes,” such as the use of records to gratify
private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
statements, or release trade secrets.
Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
///
///
///

5

C.

Application
After an in camera review of Exhibits 19 through 22 and the

Additional Ritsema Declaration, the court finds that Defendant has met its burden
to seal these documents.
1.

The Documents at Issue Constitute Trade Secrets
Defendant argues that the documents at issue contain confidential

trade secrets. The court agrees. The Ninth Circuit defines a trade secret as “any
formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information which is used in one’s
business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009
(9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts ¶757, cmt. b.); see also In re Elec.
Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, Defendant contends that Exhibits 19 through 22 and the
Additional Ritsema Declaration all relate to “Ford’s business of designing and
manufacturing passenger vehicles, including Ford’s engineering methodologies
and decision making practices.” Doc. No. 187-1, Mem. at 4 (citing Burnett Decl.
¶ 12). Defendant further contends that this confidential information provides Ford
with a competitive advantage over other vehicle manufacturers in terms of vehicle
research, design, development, evaluation and analysis, which is translatable into
6

sales and profits. Id. Ford maintains the confidentiality of its engineering
methodologies and practices by making it available only to specific Ford
employees, such information is not known outside of Ford’s business, and the
economic value of such information is dependent upon its confidentiality. Id. at 45 (citing Burnett Decl. ¶¶12-13). The court finds that the information in Plaintiff’s
Exhibits 19 - 22 and the Additional Ritsema Declaration constitutes trade secrets
-- it is used in Ford’s business and gives Ford an advantage over its competitors
who do not know or use the information. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x
at 569.
2.

Defendant Met the Compelling Reasons Standard
Preventing the release of trade secrets generally constitutes a

compelling reason to seal such documents. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (observing that the “common-law right of inspection has
bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” are not used as
“sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
standing”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226-28 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (holding that under Ninth Circuit law, detailed product-specific information
and internal reports are appropriate to seal under the “compelling reasons”
standard where that information could be used to the company’s competitive
7

disadvantage). However, an “unsupported assertion of unfair advantage to
competitors without explaining how a competitor would use th[e] information to
obtain an unfair advantage” is insufficient. Hodges v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL
6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (finding Apple failed to meet the
compelling reasons standard because it failed to state what harm it would
experience if proprietary business, engineering, and design material were publicly
disclosed and failed to provide specific reasons to seal the information, supported
by facts, that could outweigh the public policy favoring public access to court
filings).
Defendant contends that if these documents containing “information
regarding the development of restraint technologies and Ford’s engineering design
decision making processes” were publicly disclosed, “Ford’s competitors . . .
would gain a competitive advantage [by being] able to use Ford’s sophisticated
and refined engineering practices and methodologies without incurring the costs
necessary to develop them (costs which Ford has had to incur), allowing them to
bring products to market sooner than they otherwise would have and/or at a lower
cost.” Doc. No. 187-2, Burnett Decl. ¶¶ 14-15. Burnett’s Declaration is sufficient
to establish a compelling reason to seal these documents -- Ford spent
considerable time and expense developing its engineering methodologies and
8

practices and it would be harmed if competitors were able to use Ford’s trade
secrets to bring products to market sooner and at a lower cost. See Nixon, 435
U.S. at 598; Apple Inc., 727 F.3d at 1228. Accordingly, the court finds that
Defendant has established compelling reasons to seal these documents.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19 Through 22 and Additional Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema
is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged Plaintiff’s
Exhibits 19 through 22 and Additional Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema, in support
of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
Doc. No. 172, UNDER SEAL. In light of Defendant’s representation that it does
not oppose public disclosure of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 23, Plaintiff is directed to file
Exhibit 23 publicly. Plaintiff is also directed to file ¶ 26 of the Additional
Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema publicly by either filing an amended Declaration
///
///
///
///
///
9

of Scott A Ritsema that includes ¶¶ 1-21 and 26, or by filing a Second Additional
Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema that includes ¶ 26.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 20, 2015.

/s/ J. Michael Seabright
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge

Chung v. Ford Motor Co., Civ. No. 13-00604 JMS-RLP, Order Granting Defendant Ford Motor
Company’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19 Through 22 and Additional
Declaration of Scott A. Ritsema in Opposition to Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages

10