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