Opinion
24-cv-01834-BLF
07-23-2024
DOMAINE CARNEROS, LTD, Plaintiff, v. LEA TRADING LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
[Re: ECF Nos. 30, 34]
BETTI LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court are two administrative motions:
1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 30.
2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 34.
For the reasons described below, the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 30 and 34 are GRANTED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant Lea Trading LLC filed ECF No. 30 on July 1, 2024 and ECF No. 34 on July 11, 2024. Plaintiff Domaine Carneros, Ltd. submitted two declarations, one for each motion. ECF Nos. 35, 36.
Plaintiff seeks to seal the same portions of two identical exhibits (the same eight-page document found at ECF Nos. 30-2 and 34-2) attached to Defendant's administrative motion to file a sur-reply and Defendant's sur-reply. Id. The Court considers the two administrative motions and the corresponding declarations together.
Plaintiff writes that the information should be sealed because it “contain[s] the personal shipping address and personal billing address of a nonparty declarant” and “[t]he redaction of such personal contact information will protect the declarant's privacy interests and protect her from harm.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 4.
The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the document at ECF Nos. 30-2 and 34-2. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.
The Court's ruling is summarized below:
ECF or Exhibit No.
Document
Portion(s) to Seal
Ruling
30-2 and 34-2
Highlighted portions on pages 2-8
GRANTED, as the document contains the personal contact information of a nonparty declarant, disclosure of which may result in harm.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. ECF No. 30 is GRANTED.
2. ECF No. 34 is GRANTED