Talking Rain Beverage Company Inc v. DS Services of America, Inc.
Filing
112
ORDER denying 95 Stipulated Motion to file documents under seal; dft to file a supplemental motion to seal, noted for the same day it's filed with no response necessary signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
8
TALKING RAIN BEVERAGE COMPANY,
INC.,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
Case No. C15-1804RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
12
13
I.
INTRODUCTION
14
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to File
Documents Under Seal. Dkt. #95. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of
17
its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, along with certain exhibits attached to the
18
Declaration of Robert J. Shaughnessy filed in support of that motion, and paragraph 6 and
19
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Hall also filed in support of that motion. Id.
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff makes this motion in compliance with the Protective Order entered previously in this
matter, as Defendant has marked certain documents and information as confidential or
attorney’s eyes only; however, Plaintiff does not necessarily agree that the evidence in
24
question satisfies the requirements for filing under seal. Id. The Court has reviewed the
25
information and exhibits sought to be filed under seal. For the reasons discussed herein, the
26
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
ORDER - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
II.
DISCUSSION
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule CR
5(g)(2). For nondispositive motions, “this presumption may be overcome by a showing of
good cause.” Id. For dispositive motions, parties must make a “compelling showing” that
the public’s right of access is outweighed by the parties’ interest in protecting the documents.
7
Id. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure
8
and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for
9
improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
10
11
circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). “The mere fact
12
13
14
that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or
exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
15
(citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). Further,
16
the Court will not grant broad authority to file documents under seal simply because the
17
parties have designated them as confidential in the course of discovery. Kamakana, 447 F.
18
19
20
21
3d at 1183. “If possible, a party should protect sensitive information by redacting documents
rather than seeking to file them under seal.” CR 5(g)(3). Thus, “the motion or stipulation to
seal should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.” Id.
22
As an initial matter, the Court has compared Plaintiff’s proposed redacted Motion for
23
Partial Summary Judgment to the unredacted version presently filed under seal. See Dkts.
24
#96 and #97. The Court is not convinced that any part of the motion should be redacted.
25
Plaintiff proposes redacting certain marketing information from 2015-2016. However, it is
26
ORDER - 2
1
not immediately clear to the Court why this information should be sealed. Accordingly,
2
Defendant must explain the reasons this information must be sealed, what authority provides
3
4
5
6
a basis to protect such information, and why the information contained therein is not already
so stale as to no longer be proprietary and/or harmful.
With respect to paragraph 6 and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher Hall
7
(Dkt. #99), the Court requires further information from Defendant before it can reach any
8
conclusion as to whether that information should be sealed. The information appears to be
9
statistical in nature and cross-references the markets in which both parties’ brands are sold.
10
11
Defendant must explain the reasons this information must be sealed, what authority provides
a basis to protect such information, and why the information contained therein is not already
12
13
14
so stale as to no longer be proprietary and/or harmful.
Likewise, the Court requires further information with respect to Exhibits 1-7, 16-19
15
and 41-42 to the Declaration of Robert J. Shaughnessy (Dkt. #101) before it can reach any
16
conclusion as to whether those exhibits should be sealed. Specifically, with respect to
17
Exhibits 1-7, which contain lengthy excerpts of deposition transcripts, Defendant must
18
19
20
21
explain the reasons why these exhibits must be sealed, why they cannot be redacted, what
information and/or documents is required to be protected, and what authority provides a basis
to protect such information and/or documents.
22
Further, with respect to Exhibits 16-19 and 42, which contain various marketing
23
documents, Defendant must explain the reasons these exhibits must be sealed, why they
24
cannot be redacted, what authority provides a basis to protect such information and/or
25
documents, and why the information contained therein is not already so stale as to no longer
26
ORDER - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
be proprietary and/or harmful.
Finally, the Court is particularly concerned about the alleged confidentiality of
Exhibit 41. That exhibit contains the Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson In Response to
the Report of Philip Johnson. That report is not marked confidential in any manner. Thus,
Defendant must explain the reasons this report must be sealed, why it cannot be redacted,
7
what authority provides a basis to protect such information and/or document, and why the
8
information contained therein is not already so stale as to no longer be proprietary and/or
9
harmful.
10
11
III.
CONCLUSION
Having considered Defendant’s unopposed motion, along with the Exhibits and the
12
13
14
15
remainder of the record, and being fully advised, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. #95) is
DENIED as discussed above.
16
2. No later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall file a
17
supplemental motion to seal Plaintiff’s proposed redacted Motion for Partial
18
19
20
21
Summary Judgment, paragraph 6 and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Christopher
Hall, and Exhibits 1-7, 16-19 and 41-42 to the Declaration of Robert J.
Shaughnessy, explaining why such documents and information should be sealed
22
as detailed above. The supplemental motion shall be noted for consideration
23
the same day it is filed, and shall be limited to no longer than twelve (12) pages
24
in length. No response shall be filed. The documents filed under seal by Plaintiff
25
26
ORDER - 4
1
shall remain under seal until the Court considers the supplemental motion and
2
makes a final decision as to whether the documents should be sealed.
3
4
5
6
3. The parties’ pending motions for summary judgment (Dkts. #96 and #106) shall
remain pending and noted as filed.
DATED this 29th day of June 2017.
7
8
A
9
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 5
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?