Opinion
2:23-cv-00322 WBS JDP
11-12-2024
SULLIVAN CITTADINO, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES, LLC; BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC; SAFWAY GROUP HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants request to file three employment-related agreements between the parties -- (1) an Equity and Related Arrangements agreement, (2) a Management Incentive Compensation Plan, and (3) a Delegation of Authority agreement -- with redactions of certain information. (See Docket No. 49.)
A party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing” presents a compelling reason to seal documents. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Defendants have demonstrated that the limited redactions contain information that, if revealed, could harm their competitive standing. This information includes certain terms associated with employee stock sales and vesting, see In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-02509 LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013); Pyro Spectaculars North, Inc. v. Souza, No. 2:12-cv-00299 GGH (E.D. Cal. March 8, 2012), and information pertaining to internal financial operations including the settlement of litigation, see San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Prods., No. 14-cv-1865 AJB JMA, 2017 WL 3732081, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) . Further, granting the request will not impede the public's ability to understand the basis for the court's decision, as the redacted information is not germane to the pending motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' request (Docket No. 49) to redact Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to Exhibit A of the DuCharme Declaration be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The redacted exhibits (Docket No. 49 at 76-158) are hereby deemed FILED.