Holliday et al v. Nissan Motor Co Ltd et al

Filing 58

ORDER AND OPINION The Court GRANTS Defendant CKNA's Motions to Seal (Dkt. No. 50 , 51 , 54 ). Defendant CKNA is DIRECTED to file under seal Exhibit B to their Motion to Dismiss and Exhibit A to their Reply to the Resp onse to their Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 53 ). The Motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs seek to file Exhibit 1, Greg Deibig's deposition, and certain refere nces to Deibig's testimony under seal. Plaintiffs are therefore DIRECTED to file under seal Exhibit 1 and may redact from the publicly filed Response all direct quotes from Deibig's deposition and the first four full sentences of the fin al paragraph of page 4 that continues onto page 5. An unredacted copy of the Response in Opposition should also be filed under seal. Plaintiffs' Motion is otherwise DENIED, and Plaintiffs must, within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Order file the redacted Response in Opposition and Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 on the docket. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/24/2019.(sshe, )

IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Gary Holliday and Soinya Holliday,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan North
America, Inc., Calsonic Kansei North
America, Inc., and Calsonic Kansei
Corporation,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:18-1503-RMG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

Before the Court is Defendants and Plaintiffs' motions to seal. (Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 53, 54.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 50, 51 ,
54) and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion to seal (Dkt. No. 53 .)
I.

Background

On September 5, 2015, Plaintiff Gary Holliday was involved in an accident on I-95 in
Wilson County, North Carolina while driving his 2011 Nissan Sentra. (Dkt. No. 10 at~ 30.) Gary
Holliday and his wife, Plaintiff Soinya Holliday, bring claims against Defendants Nissan Motor
Co., Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc., and Calsonic Kansei
Corporation, as the developers, manufacturers and sellers of the occupant restraint system that
allegedly failed to deploy during the accident. (Id.

at~~

37 -42.) The Court previously denied as

moot Calsonic Kansei North America' s ("CKNA") motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and granted jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the Court has specific
jurisdiction over CKNA. (Dkt. No. 37.) After the close of jurisdictional discovery, Defendant
CKNA renewed their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 52.)

-1-

As part of the briefing of the renewed motion to dismiss, the Parties moved to file under
seal a variety of putatively confidential documents and depositions. Defendant CKNA, in its
motions seeks solely to file under seal the deposition of a corporate representative. (Dkt. Nos. 50,
51 , 54.) Plaintiffs seek to seal their entire filing in Response to Defendant CKNA's motion to
dismiss, which includes the Memo itself, the deposition of the corporate representative, and
various other documents produced during jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 52.)
II.

Discussion

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.03 , a party seeking to file documents under seal shall file a
motion and a memorandum, which shall:
(1) identify, with specificity, the documents or portions thereof for which sealing
is requested; (2) state the reasons why sealing is necessary; (3) explain (for each
document or group of documents) why less drastic alternatives to sealing will not
afford adequate protection; and (4) address the factors governing sealing of
documents reflected in controlling case law.
Local Civil Rule 5.03 , D.S.C. Furthermore, pursuant to the Local Rule, "[t]he Clerk shall provide
public notice of the Motion to Seal in the manner directed by the Court . .. this may be accomplished
by docketing the motion in a manner that discloses its nature as a motion to seal." Id. The Supreme
Court recognized a common law right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents in Nixon

v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S . 589, 597 (1978). This right is not absolute, however,
and the court "may, in its discretion, seal documents ifthe public's right of access is outweighed
by competing interests." Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc. , 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000), describes the
process a district court must follow before sealing court documents:
[B]efore a district court may seal any court documents, .. . it must (1) provide public
notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to
object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3)
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the
documents and for rejecting the alternatives.

Id. at 302 (citations omitted).

-2-

The procedural requirements of Local Rule 5.03 have been met here. (Dkt. Nos. 50, 51 , 53,
54.) The Parties motions complied with the rule, the public received notice of the request to seal
when the motions were docketed, and no parties objected. While the Court finds that sealing is
appropriate for the deposition of the corporate representative, Greg Deibig, including any materials
that directly quote from the deposition, the Court finds that there are less drastic alternatives to
sealing the Plaintiffs' entire Response in Opposition to CKNA ' s motion to dismiss.
Both Plaintiffs and CK.NA agree that Deibig's deposition should be filed under seal as it
contains proprietary business information. Upon review of the deposition excerpts, it is clear the
deposition contains sensitive business and financial information, and the Court finds it appropriate
to permit those documents to be filed under seal. Plaintiffs' motion, however, also seeks to seal
multiple documents that are not properly designated as confidential. Notably, Plaintiffs argue that
they are seeking to seal their entire Response as it may contain Defendant CKNA's proprietary
information. (Dkt. No. 53-1.) However, Defendant CK.NA has not similarly sought to seal their
own Motion to Dismiss, although it also extensively cites to Deibig' s deposition. (Dkt. No. 52.)
Further, the other exhibits included for sealing by Plaintiffs' do not contain confidential or
proprietary information. One exhibit is a publicly accessible annual report from Nissan, and the
other two exhibits include contracts with Honda and Volvo that Defendant CK.NA, in its publicly
filed memo, discussed.

(Dkt. No. 52 at 9; 9 n.4.) The documents also contain emails and

advertising materials, and neither Party has argued that these documents in particular are
confidential and instead they seem to contain information shared with potential buyers.
The Court therefore declines to seal Plaintiffs Response in Opposition memo or Exhibits
2, 3 or 4.

Plaintiffs' are permitted to file under seal Exhibit 1, the excerpts from Deibig' s

deposition. Further, in order to maintain the confidentiality of the Deibig deposition, Plaintiffs

-3-

should file on the docket their Response in Opposition memo with all direct quotes from the Deibig
deposition redacted.

Plaintiffs should also file an unredacted version of their Response in

Opposition under seal.

Finally, as it discusses sensitive business information, the redacted

Response in Opposition filed on the docket should also redact the first four full sentences of the
final paragraph of page 4 that continues onto page 5. The final two sentences of that paragraph,
on page 5, should remain unredacted as they rely on non-confidential information.
III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant CKNA ' s Motions to Seal (Dkt.
No. 50, 51, 54). Defendant CKNA is DIRECTED to file under seal Exhibit B to their Motion to
Dismiss and Exhibit A to their Reply to the Response to their Motion to Dismiss. The Court
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 53). The

Motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs' seek to file Exhibit 1, Greg Deibig' s deposition,
and certain references to Deibig's testimony under seal. Plaintiffs' are therefore DIRECTED to
file under seal Exhibit 1 and may redact from the publicly filed Response all direct quotes from
Deibig' s deposition and the first four full sentences of the final paragraph of page 4 that continues
onto page 5. An unredacted copy of the Response in Opposition should also be filed under seal.
Plaintiff's Motion is otherwise DENIED, and Plaintiffs' must, within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this
Order file the redacted Response in Opposition and Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 on the docket.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
May ' # ,2019
Charleston, South Carolina

-4-