Poletti et al v. Syngenta AG et al
Filing
339
ORDER GRANTING 333 Syngenta's Motion to De-Designate and Unseal Filings Marked Confidential by Cargill. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to take the necessary action to unseal documents 229 Syngenta's Third-Party Complaint, 325 Syngenta's Opposition to the Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss including accompanying exhibits, and 333 Syngenta's Motion to Unseal. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/5/2018. (ceh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN RE SYNGENTA ACTIONS
Judge David R. Herndon
This Document Relates To:
Poletti et al. v. Syngenta AG et al.,
No. 3:15-cv-01221-DRH
Order Granting Syngenta’s Motion to De-Designate and Unseal Filings Marked
Confidential by Third-Party Defendant Cargill
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Syngenta’s motion (doc. 333), challenging
the confidentiality designations that third-party defendant Cargill placed on
certain material, then referenced and discussed in three different filings,
specifically: 1. Syngenta’s Third-Party Complaint, doc. 229, 2. Syngenta’s
Opposition to the ACD defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint,
doc. 325, and 3. the motion of which this Order relates, Syngenta’s Motion to DeDesignate and Unseal Filings Marked Confidential by Cargill (“Motion to Unseal”).
Syngenta seeks the Court unseal these three documents and any accompanying
exhibits due to improper confidentiality designations marked by Cargill as either
“confidential” or “highly confidential,” asserting that this practice violates the
public’s right to an open court system.
Cargill opposes Syngenta’s Motion to Unseal only in part, and states narrow
objections to various textual references in the three filings listed above and to the
exhibits attached to Syngenta’s Opposition to the ACD defendants’ Motion to
1
Dismiss. Cargill contends that parts of the contested material incorporated by
Syngenta in document numbers 229, 325, and 333 were appropriately designated
as confidential and properly sealed due to the commercially sensitive nature of the
information, and that Syngenta’s case is not prejudiced by maintaining that
designation because the information Syngenta seeks to unseal is only tangentially
relevant to the merits of the case.
Thus, Cargill asks that the Court grant
Syngenta’s motion in part and deny the motion in part. The Court has considered
the parties' briefing and has reviewed each of the challenged documents. For the
reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Syngenta’s motion in its entirety.
II.
ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “for good cause shown, the
court ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,
including ... that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated
way....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). A party seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c)
bears the burden of demonstrating good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(7). In the
instant matter, a protective order was entered that allowed Cargill to designate
materials, in good faith, as Confidential or Highly Confidential.
See Cargill
Stipulated Protective Order entered in Louisiana state court litigation (40th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of S. John the Baptist, Case No. 67061,
Division A); see also, doc. 56 (Protective Order containing mirrored provisions).
2
The Protective Order further provides that if a party challenges any such
confidential designations, “the burden of proving the necessity of [the designation]
remains with the party asserting confidentiality.” Id. at ¶ 15, see also, In re Bank
One Sec. Litig., 222 F.R.D. 582, 586 (N.D. Ill. 2004), quoting Union Oil Co. of
Cal. V. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Once a protective order is
entered, a party must continue to show good cause for confidentiality when
challenged.”)
Accordingly, Cargill’s duty to establish good cause for its
confidentiality designations was triggered when Syngenta raised an issue with
respect to the challenged documents.
In civil litigation, “only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized
privilege . . . , and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence
. . . is entitled to be kept secret.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d
544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added); see also, Union Oil Co., 220 F.3d at
568 (“only genuine trade secrets, or information with the scope of a requirement
such as Fed. R. Crip. P. 6(e)(2) . . . may be held in long-term confidence.” Thus,
to successfully carry the burden of establishing good cause for the confidentiality
designations, Cargill must first demonstrate that the objected to materials fall into
one of these categories, and then show that a particular need for protection exists.
There must be evidence that a clearly defined and serious injury will result
otherwise. See 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice And Procedure § 2035
(3d ed.). In this regard, “[t]he courts have insisted on a particular and specific
demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory
3
statements.” Id.; Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 (1981) (citing Wright
& Miller).
The main issue before the Court thus becomes: Has Cargill established
good cause for the Court to keep the challenged documents protected under seal?
In other words, has Cargill demonstrated that the information it seeks to keep
protected of a legitimate commercially sensitive nature that would harm Cargill in
a concrete way if made public. The Court thinks not. The undersigned has taken
the time to review the material referenced in the three documents subject to
Syngenta’s Motion to Unseal and find that they lack confidentiality of any kind
and/or have already been introduced into the public domain. Cargill fails to
demonstrate the commercial sensitivity of the challenged material, using only
generalized conclusory terms to bolster why Cargill would suffer a competitive
disadvantage if publicized.
What explanation Cargill does gives to demonstrate why the contested
documents should be kept sealed is spent on nonspecific, boilerplate conclusions.
Cargill’s briefing says little more than that certain portions of the three contested
documents contain information that give it a competitive advantage or that they
are internal communications consisting of sensitive business information. See,
e.g. doc. 335 at 16, (opposing unsealing because document “contains Cargill’s
internal discussions of business strategy” and because exhibit contains “sensitive
internal discussions about business strategy.”) Cargill spends no time convincing
the Court that the business information it seeks to protect are genuine trade
4
secrets. See Union Oil Co., 220 F.3d at 568 (“[O]nly genuine trade secrets . . .
may be held in long-term confidence.”) Nebulous allegations of competitive harm
that might result do not suffice to demonstrate that any particularized harm will
result from disclosure.
Cargill additionally focuses on case law supporting when various courts
have kept business information redacted due to the material being only
“tangentially relevant” to the case at hand. See, e.g. Cargill’s quote in doc. 335, p.
9 to Sky Angel U.S., v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, 95 F. Supp. 3d 860, 885 (D.
Md. 2015) and Cargill’s quote at p. 10 to Williams v. Cent. Contracting & Marine
Inc., No. 15-867 (SMY-RJD), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151941, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Nov.
2, 2016) (Yandle, J.)
Again however, the Court is not provided with sound
reasoning as to why Cargill believes the information in the three contested
documents is not relevant to resolution of the instant matter or why it believes the
challenged material will not form part of the basis of judicial action on the issues.
These
non-specific
arguments
do
not
satisfactorily
establish
that
the
confidentiality designations are proper.
The Court also notes that in opposing Syngenta’s motion, Cargill devotes
energy trying to discern the objective behind Syngenta’s decision to contest the
designations. Cargill asserts that Syngenta moves to make the documents public
because Syngenta wants to “publicly malign Cargill” and “sling[] mud” at Cargill,
doc. 333, pgs. 2, 20, and argues that the Court is under no obligation to publicize
briefing that serves only as “reservoirs of libelous statements for press
5
consumption.” Id. at p. 20, citing Nixon v. Warner Comc’ns,, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
598 (1978).
The Court however fails to see the importance of this position.
Syngenta is not under an obligation to prove a proper motive for their motion.
Syngenta challenged the subject confidentiality designations and thus, it falls on
Cargill to establish that those designations were appropriate.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Syngenta’s motion is GRANTED. The
Court
ORDERS
the
de-designation
of
the
three
challenged
documents.
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to take the necessary
action to unseal the appropriate documents, namely, docket entries numbered
229, 325 and 333, including the exhibits attached to docket entry no. 325.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Herndon
2018.01.05
12:46:36 -06'00'
United State District Judge
6
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?