Opinion
21-cv-00778-EMC
06-25-2024
ESC-TOY LTD., Plaintiffs, v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendants.
ORDER ON THE PARTIES' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL DOCKET NOS. 301, 315, 320, 336, 338, 341, 376, 377, AND 378
EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties had filed several administrative motions to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 315, 320, and 336. The Court ordered the parties to re-file their administrative motions to file under seal, narrowing and clarifying their requests pursuant to L.R. 79-5 and Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). See Docket No. 186. Because these filings pertain to Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel, Maschoff Brennan, which is a non-dispositive motion, the sealing requests only need to meet the “good cause” standard.
In this instance, this case presents an unusual circumstance in which ESC-Toy's (“ESC”) counsel may no longer view portions of Ms. Gayner's documents pursuant to the Protective Order. See Docket No. 369. As such, the Court ordered that Sony Interactive Entertainment (“Sony”) propose which portions of these documents need to be filed under seal in light of the Court's Protective Order as well as Sony's confidential business information regarding its licensing practices and business strategies. See Docket No. 186 at 2.
ESC's new counsel, Call & Jensen, filed several oppositions to Sony's new administrative motions, requesting that the Court order that SIE provide ESC with an unredacted copy of the sealed documents, so ESC's counsel could determine whether any portion of the documents should remain sealed according to ESC's interests. Docket Nos. 380, 381, 382.
The Court must first determine which documents must be produced to Call & Jensen. There are several documents that must be withheld from Call & Jensen's review because they contain privileged information which Sony's former counsel improperly shared with ESC's former counsel (who were subsequently disqualified from this case as a result). However, there are several documents that should be shared with Call & Jensen because they are not tainted by the prior inappropriate disclosure.
The Court's ruling on the documents is set forth below.
Document
Identification of Portions to be Sealed
Granted/Denied (denial means that the documents shall be sent to ESC, but otherwise will still be sealed from the public)
SIE's Motion to Disqualify Maschoff Brennan, Docket No. 315.
6:1-2 11:19-20 17:11-14
Grant
SIE's Motion to Disqualify Maschoff Brennan, Docket No. 315.
2:2-4 3:19-21, 23-27 4:1-2, 6-8, 13-14, 21-23 5:8-10, 15, 21-22 6:6-10 11:1-7, 11-18, 21 18:1-5, 22-24 20:17-19, 26-27
Deny
Docket No. 315, Ex. 1 32,
34, 35, 39, 40
Deny
Docket No. 315, Ex. 6
116-117, 119, 128-129, 148-149, 181, 194-196, 202, 215-216, 233, 236, 238, 245-247, 249-253, 260
Grant
Docket No. 315, Ex 11
369:23-25 370:4-6
Grant
Docket No. 315, Ex. 11
296:5, 8-9, 12-13, 18-19, 22-25 298:20-299:3 299:5- 6 300:1-4, 6, 8, 10-20 301:1-3, 8-9 313:15-23 314:1, 13-14, 18-19, 24-25 348:13-15, 18-20, 22-25 349:3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15,
Deny
17-18, 20-21, 23-25 369:4-5, 8-10, 13-14, 16-17, 20 370:1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-15 389:1-6, 11-18, 20-21, 25
Docket No. 315, Exs. 3,13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 28
Sealed in its entirety.
Grant
Docket No. 315, Exs. 4, 9, 12, 16
Sealed in its entirety
Deny
Oppn to Motion to Disqualify, Docket No. 320
4:26-5:2
Grant
Docket No. 320, Ex. A
118-125, 162-65, 230-37, 250-53, and 258-61
Grant
Proposed Protective Order, Docket No. 336
Sealed in its entirety.
Deny
In addition, the following administrative motions to file under seal are denied: Docket Nos. 301, 338, and 341.
As to those documents ordered to be disclosed to Call & Jensen, the parties will have one week upon receipt to meet and confer and report to the Court in a joint letter stating which documents, if any, should be filed under seal and withheld from public disclosure. The letter shall list those documents to be filed under seal and those not to be filed under seal. The parties shall also list any documents upon which the parties disagree.
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 301, 315, 320, 336, 338, 341, 376, 377, and 378.
IT IS SO ORDERED.