Summary
declining to "decid[e] which standard applies in this case . . . because the same records would be sealed under either standard"
Summary of this case from Philips v. Ford Motor Co.Opinion
No. CV-13-08274-PCT-JAT
02-01-2016
James Gustafson, Plaintiff, v. Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court are four motions to seal: (1) a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing Portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Supporting Evidence (Doc. 77); (2) Defendants' Motion to File under Seal: (A) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support, and Portions of Certain Exhibits Thereto, and (B) Portions of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 86); (3) a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing Portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 93); and (4) a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing (A) Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification, and (B) Certain Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 106). The Court now rules on the motions.
I. Legal Standard
It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access "to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access extends to all judicial records except those that have "traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons," namely grand jury transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, "the common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records" do not "serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm the litigant's competitive standing." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
"Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by either meeting the "compelling reasons" standard if the record is a dispositive pleading, or the "good cause" standard if the record is a non-dispositive pleading. Id. at 1180.
In a recent opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit shifted from the dispositive/non-dispositive analysis to a review of the relationship between the underlying motion and the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp, LLC, No. 15-55084, 2016 WL 142440, at *6 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016) ("Auto Safety"). Specifically, Auto Safety held that public access to records attached to a motion that is "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" will be reviewed under the "compelling interest" standard, while documents attached to a motion that does not have a "tangential" relationship to the merits of a case may be sealed if "good cause" is shown. Id. However, because Auto Safety was only a panel decision and not en banc, prior Ninth Circuit precedent centralizing the inquiry on whether the record is dispositive or non-dispositive was not overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta stated as much in her Dissent:
According to the majority, the district court here erred because it "relied on language in our cases which provides that when a party is attempting to keep records attached to a 'non-dispositive' motion under seal, it need only show 'good cause.'" Maj. op. at 5. This comes as a surprise, because the "language in our cases" constitutes binding precedent. But no matter, the majority invents a new rule, namely that a party cannot keep records under seal if they are attached to any motion that is "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case," Maj. op. at 17, unless the party can meet the "stringent standard" of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy, Maj. op. at 8. Because this decision overrules circuit precedent and vitiates Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I strongly dissent.
What constitutes a "compelling reason" is "best left to the sound discretion of the trial court." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. The Court must "balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. If the Court decides to seal certain judicial records after considering these interests, "it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Id. "In general, 'compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets." Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
A "trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, cmt. B (1939)). Notably, as this Court has observed in the past, "because confidentiality alone does not transform business information into a trade secret, a party alleging trade secret protection as a basis for sealing court records must show that the business information is in fact a trade secret." PCT Int'l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC, 2014 WL 4722326, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quotation omitted).
The less-stringent "good cause" standard requires a "particularized showing" 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) (quotation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" is not enough. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
Here, the pending motions to seal concern documents associated with Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Although the Ninth Circuit has not spoken on the issue of whether a motion for class certification is a dispositive or non-dispositive pleading, this Court has applied the "good cause" standard to the sealing of documents filed with a motion for conditional certification, see Hart v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5965637, at *8-9 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2013), and other courts in this circuit have applied the "good cause" standard to documents concomitant to class certification motions, see In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 5486230 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2013 WL 1997252 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2013; Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2010 WL 2107434 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2010). As noted, however, a panel of the Ninth Circuit recently muddied the waters regarding the standards applicable to a motion to seal. On one hand, if the Court were to follow the Auto Safety test, a motion for class certification likely involves issues that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of the case," thereby invoking the "compelling reasons" standard. See Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that courts must "consider evidence which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 [at the class certification stage] even [if] the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of the case"). On the other hand, if the Court were to apply the traditional dispositive/non-dispositive approach, the "good cause" standard would likely apply. See, e.g., In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 n.1. Nonetheless, the Court finds that deciding which standard applies in this case is inconsequential because the same records would be sealed under either standard.
II. Analysis
Goodman seeks to seal three categories of information: (1) warranty claim rate information for Goodman evaporator coils, (2) the design and manufacturing processes used by Goodman to produce evaporator coils, and (3) pricing details related to payments made by Goodman for replacements of evaporator coils. See (Docs. 77, 86, 93, 106). The Court will analyze each in turn.
A. Warranty Claim Rate for Goodman Evaporator Coils
A residential air conditioner includes three integrated components: (1) an evaporator coil, (2) a condenser coil, and (3) a compressor. Goodman argues that all documents containing the warranty claim rate and related information for its evaporator coil product should be sealed because disclosing such data "would unfairly equip competitors with information to attempt to dissuade distributors and dealers from selling Goodman products." (Doc. 77 at 2). According to Goodman, publicizing this information would "unfairly disadvantage Goodman and allow a competitor to attempt to use that information to the competitor's commercial advantage." (Id.) Goodman highlights the fact that it keeps its warranty claim rate data strictly confidential and limits access only to those people who "need to know." (Id.) Goodman also comments that two other district courts permitted Goodman to file its warranty claim rate information under seal. (Id. (citing McVicar v. Goodman Global, Inc., No. SA CV 13-1223-DOC(RNBx) (C.D. Cal.); Kotsur v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-1147-NS (E.D. Pa.))).
Both of these courts applied the "good cause" standard when determining whether the documents should be filed under seal.
The Court agrees with Kotsur and McVicar that the warranty claim rate for Goodman evaporator coils satisfies the "good cause" standard and also concludes that "compelling reasons" exist to seal the claim rates. In Goodman's industry, warranty claim rates are deemed classified commercial information that are kept strictly confidential from competitors. Accordingly, Goodman maintains its rates in a highly securitized manner.
For this reason, the Court will permit Goodman to file under seal documents that reflect Goodman's actual warranty claim rate and data that could be manipulated to ascertain that rate. Many of Goodman's proposed redactions, however, are far too broad. For manufacturing companies that offer a warranty program, warranty claims are a business reality. Simply because a document addresses warranty claims in nonspecific terms or recounts some generic feature of a warranty claim (i.e., the length of time between date of purchase and the claim or the fact that the claim rate increases or decreases over time) does not warrant sealing the document from the public. As Goodman quotes from a congressional agency finding, "the public availability of detailed, comprehensive warranty data . . . will provide significant market intelligence to competitors." (Doc. 77 at 7 (citing Confidential Business Information, 72 Fed. Reg. 59,434, 59,455 (Oct. 19, 2007))) (emphasis added). Rather than "detailed" and "comprehensive," much of the data Goodman seeks to seal is vague and piecemeal.
Consequently, the Court concludes that several of Goodman's proposed redactions under the guise of "warranty claim rate information" do not justify sealing under either the "good cause" or "compelling reasons" standard and ORDERS as follows:
| DocketNo. inSupportofSealing | Document | ||
| 77 | Plaintiff'sMotion for ClassCertification andMemorandum ofPoints andAuthorities(Docs. 78, 81) | Page 18, lines 26-27 | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodmanevaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | Declaration ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 80) | ¶ 19; ¶ 22, sentenceno. 2; Exhibit E | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodmanevaporator coils should be kept |
| under seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. | |||
| 77 | Declaration ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 80) | DENIED. The fact that thistestimony innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims—without expressing the actual rate ordata that could be manipulated todetermine the actual rate—is notenough to merit sealing theinformation from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | TostrudExhibit D(Stephen GriffinDeposition)(Doc. 82) | 119:1-7; 119:19-120:11 | GRANTED. This testimony reflectsGoodman's internal analysis ofwarranty claims. Specifically, itreviews a document that analyzesclaims reporting a leak based on theyear of manufacture. Disclosure ofthis data could unfairly prejudiceGoodman's competitive standing. |
| 77 | TostrudExhibit D(Stephen GriffinDeposition)(Doc. 82) | 117:12-14; 117:24-118:25; 119:8-18;120:12-24 | DENIED. The fact that thistestimony innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims or"leak counts"—without expressingthe actual rate or data that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 77 | Tostrud | Entirety | GRANTED. This testimony reflects |
| Exhibit Q(Doc. 82) | Goodman's internal analysis ofwarranty claims. Specifically, itreviews a document that analyzesclaims reporting a leak based on theyear of manufacture. Disclosure ofthis data could unfairly prejudiceGoodman's competitive standing. | ||
| 86 | Defendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion for ClassCertification andMemorandum inSupport(Doc. 85) | Page 2, line 8;Page 6, line 21;Page 14, line 28;Page 16, line 13;Page 22, line 17;Page 29, line 27;Page 35, line 2 | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodmanevaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 86 | Defendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion for ClassCertification andMemorandum inSupport(Doc. 85) | Page 8, lines 1-2;Page 12, line 22;Page 13, lines 14-28 | DENIED. The fact that a documentinnocuously refers to the existenceof warranty claims—withoutexpressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 86 | Exhibit B toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Declaration ofMarshallBlackham(Doc. 85) | Portions of ¶¶ 20, 21 | DENIED. The fact that a documentinnocuously refers to the existenceof warranty claims—withoutexpressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—or to the percentage of coilsthat have an extended warranty, isnot enough to merit sealing theinformation from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 86 | Exhibit E toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff's | Portions of ¶ 13;Footnote 3 | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodman |
| Motion to ClassCertification,Declaration ofDr. ItamarSimonson(Doc. 85) | evaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. | ||
| 86 | Exhibit E toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Declaration ofDr. ItamarSimonson(Doc. 85) | Portions of ¶ 34 | DENIED. The fact that thistestimony innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims—without expressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 86 | Exhibit F toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Deposition ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 85) | 11:16-17; 11:21-22;14:2; 36:4-5; 53:5-54:14; 55:6-10 | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodmanevaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. |
| 86 | Exhibit F toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Deposition ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 85) | 54:17-55:2; 55:11-15 | DENIED. The fact that thistestimony innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims—without expressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 86 | Exhibit G toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Declaration of | Portions of ¶¶ 27,28, 29 | DENIED. The fact that thistestimony innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims—without expressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealing |
| Michael E.Stevenson,Ph.D, P.E.(Doc. 85) | the information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. | ||
| 86 | Exhibit K toDefendants'Opposition toPlaintiff'sMotion to ClassCertification,Declaration ofWilliam E.Wecker, Ph.D(Doc. 85) | Portions of ¶¶ 9, 10;¶ 11; Footnotes 5, 6;Exhibits 2-5 | DENIED. While this testimonyexplains trends in the warrantyclaim rates for Goodman'sevaporator coil product it does notdisclose the actual rates. The factthat this testimony innocuouslyrefers to the existence of warrantyclaims—without expressing theactual rate or information that couldbe manipulated to determine theactual rate—is not enough to meritsealing the information from thepublic eye under either the "goodcause" or "compelling reasons"standard. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 86 | Defendants'Motion toExclude CertainOpinions of PaulJ. Sikorsky(Doc. 84) | Page 17, line 3;Page 17, line 24 | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodmanevaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. |
| 86 | Defendants'Motion toExclude CertainOpinions of PaulJ. Sikorsky(Doc. 84) | Page 11, line 4 | DENIED. The fact that a documentinnocuously refers to the existenceof warranty claims—withoutexpressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 93 | SupplementalDeclaration ofPaul J. Sikorskyin Support of | ¶¶ 5, 7, 8; Exhibit A | GRANTED. The warranty claimrate and data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate for Goodman |
| Plaintiff'sMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 92) | evaporator coils should be keptunder seal. If the information asexpressed in this document wasmade public, Goodman'scompetitive standing could beunfairly prejudiced. | ||
| 93 | SupplementalDeclaration ofPaul J. Sikorskyin Support ofPlaintiff'sMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 92) | ¶ 10 | DENIED. The fact that a documentinnocuously refers to the existenceof warranty claims—withoutexpressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | Plaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 107) | Page 3, lines 5-8;Page 3, lines 11-12;Page 3, lines 14-15;Page 3, lines 18-21;Page 4, lines 1-4;Page 4, lines 14-16;Page 4, line 19;Page 4, line 22;Page 4, line 24;Page 4, line 27-Page 5, line 5;Page 5, line 25-page 6, line 1 | DENIED. The fact that Plaintiff'sreply brief innocuously refers to theexistence of warranty claims—without expressing the actual rate orinformation that could bemanipulated to determine the actualrate—is not enough to merit sealingthe information from the public eyeunder either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 106 | Exhibit F toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | The followingsections:(1) "EstimatedExposure,"(2) "AssessmentNotes/Special Notesrelative toinformation above,"and (3) "ProjectDetails" | GRANTED. These portions of thedocument display pricinginformation that, if disclosed, couldunfairly prejudice Goodman'scompetitive standing. |
| 106 | Exhibit F toPlaintiff's Replyin Support of | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not containinformation that, by either "good |
| Motion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | cause" or "compelling reasons,"overcomes the public's presumedaccess to court records. | ||
| 106 | Exhibit G toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | The followingsections:(1) "EstimatedExposure," (2)"BusinessJustification," and(3) User JoeMcAbee's11/30/2010 Log | GRANTED. These portions of thedocument display pricinginformation that, if disclosed, couldunfairly prejudice Goodman'scompetitive standing. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | Exhibit G toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not containinformation that, by either "goodcause" or "compelling reasons,"overcomes the public's presumedaccess to court records. |
| 106 | Exhibit I toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | All "Action"sections | GRANTED. The "Action" sectionsof the document describe internaltesting techniques of Goodmanevaporator coils that, if disclosed,could give competitors of Goodmanan unfair competitive advantage. |
| 106 | Exhibit I toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not contain anyinformation that could be deemed atrade secret or that would unfairlyprejudice Goodman if disclosed. |
| 106 | Exhibit J toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | First paragraph ofWednesday, July 23,2003 8:19 AM e-mail from SteveGriffin that beginswith "Here is thereport . . ." andending with ". . .Apartments)." | GRANTED. This portion of thedocument includes a warranty claimvalue for a specific customer, thedisclosure of which could unfairlyprejudice Goodman's competitivestanding. |
| 106 | Exhibit J toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for Class | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not discuss warrantyclaim rates and only references onedealer's interactions with Goodman. |
| Certification(Doc. 108) | The information in this documentdoes not satisfy the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standards tobe sealed from the public eye. | ||
| 106 | Exhibit L toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | Entirety | DENIED. This document does notreference an actual warranty claimrate, but concerns a designmodification that was implementedyears ago and impact projections ofthat modification. BecauseGoodman physically modified aproduct that entered the market, thechanges are already subject to publicscrutiny. Consequently, documentsevincing the changes do not meeteither the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard tomerit sealing. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | Exhibit N toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | "EstimatedExposure" section | GRANTED. This portion of thedocument displays pricinginformation that, if disclosed, couldunfairly prejudice Goodman'scompetitive standing. |
| 106 | Exhibit N toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not containinformation that overcomes thepublic's presumed access to courtrecords by either "good cause" or"compelling reasons." |
| 106 | Exhibit O toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | "EstimatedExposure" section | GRANTED. This portion of thedocument displays pricinginformation that, if disclosed, couldunfairly prejudice Goodman'scompetitive standing. |
| 106 | Exhibit O toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not containinformation that overcomes thepublic's presumed access to courtrecords by either "good cause" or"compelling reasons." |
| 106 | Exhibit P to | Entirety | DENIED. This document does not |
| Plaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | contain information that overcomesthe public's presumed access tocourt records by either "good cause"or "compelling reasons." | ||
| 106 | Exhibit Q toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | Entirety | DENIED. This document does notcontain information that overcomesthe public's presumed access tocourt records by either "good cause"or "compelling reasons." Thewarranty claim rate is not disclosednor is data that could bemanipulated to determine thewarranty claim rate. |
|---|
Citations are to the sections of the documents as set forth in the motions to seal.
Rather than strike the redacted versions of the documents currently on the docket, the Court will order the parties to file a Notice of Compliance appended by versions of the documents at issue that are redacted in accordance with this Order.
Goodman cites to and discloses the essence of this sentence in its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support but does not seek to seal that portion of its Opposition. See (Doc. 85 at 7). As this information has been made available for public review, sealing it would serve no purpose. See Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that "[o]nce [information] is public, it necessarily remains public" and further stating that "[o]nce the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over" (quotation omitted)).
B. Goodman's Design and Manufacturing Processes
Goodman hopes to seal all information related to its "design and manufacturing processes, including what Goodman ultimately did and did not elect to implement." (Doc. 77 at 3). Like before, the Court agrees that—in general—material of this type may satisfy both the "good cause" and "compelling interest" standards. As Goodman observes, certain design and manufacturing processes entail "substantial cost" and are developed only through "substantial effort spanning multiple years." (Id. at 10). Thus, disclosing the details of particular design and manufacturing processes could unfairly equip Goodman's competitors with the opportunity to mimic the processes without the time and cost of development through trial and error.
Again, however, many of Goodman's proposed redactions do not fall into the bucket of design and manufacturing processes such that the information should be sealed from the public. For example, Goodman has not shown that "specific prejudice or harm" would result from disclosing its Engineering Change Request ("ECR") notification process. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11. Nor is there any protectable interest in ECR documents describing physical alterations to Goodman products that have been in the market for years. See Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, cmt. b (1939) ("Matters which are completely disclosed by the goods which one markets cannot be his secret."). Finally, "[t]he mere fact 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." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
| DocketNo. inSupportofSealing | Document | The Court's Ruling | |
| 77 | Declaration ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 80) | ¶ 32; ¶ 33, sentencenos. 1 and 2 | GRANTED. This testimonydescribes confidentialmanufacturing processes thedisclosure of which could unfairlyprejudice Goodman's competitivestanding. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | Declaration ofPaul J. Sikorsky(Doc. 80) | ¶¶ 29, 34, 35 | DENIED. This testimonyconcerns design modifications thatwere implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that hasentered the market, the changes arealready subject to public scrutiny.Consequently, sealing documentsevincing the changes does notmeet either the "good cause" or"compelling reasons" standard. |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit A(Peter AlexanderDeposition)(Doc. 82) | 124:5-23; 126:5-25; 132:1-12;132:21-133:7;133:12-135:24;136:7-138:18;139:14-24; 140:12-142:10; 142:19-144:25; 156:1-5;156:14-157:10;157:17-19 | DENIED. Much of this testimonypertains to a self-described"marketing" scheme that, based onthe records, did not entail"substantial cost" or "substantialeffort spanning multiple years" todevelop. Moreover, the designchanges in this testimony wereimplemented in products that havebeen on the market for years.Finally, the gist of one of thedesign changes was publiclydisclosed in Exhibit E to Jon A.Tostrud's Declaration, see |
| (Doc. 82-1 at 136), while anotherwas publicly disclosed in Paul J.Sikorsky's testimony, see (Doc. 80at 12-13). | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit D(Stephen GriffinDeposition)(Doc. 82) | 68:17-21; 105:22-106:5; 182:22-183:3 | DENIED. This testimony does notconcern trade secret informationabout Goodman's manufacturingor design processes. Nor doesGoodman present "good cause" ora "compelling reason" toovercome the presumption ofpublic access to this record. |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit E(MarshallBlackhamDeposition)(Doc. 82) | 189:16-191:21;193:1-6; 194:4-14;194:18-195:24 | DENIED. Much of this testimonypertains to a self-described"marketing" scheme that, based onthe records, did not entail"substantial cost" or "substantialeffort spanning multiple years" todevelop. Moreover, the designchanges in this testimony wereimplemented in products that havebeen on the market for years.Finally, the gist of one of thedesign changes was publiclydisclosed in Exhibit E to Jon A.Tostrud's Declaration. See(Doc. 82-1 at 136). |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit F(Doc. 82) | First paragraph ofWednesday, July23, 2003 8:19 AMe-mail from SteveGriffin that beginswith "Here is thereport . . . ." andending with ". . .Apartments)." | GRANTED. This portion of thedocument includes a warrantyclaim value for a specificcustomer, the disclosure of whichcould unfairly prejudiceGoodman's competitive standing. |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit F(Doc. 82) | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument does not referenceinformation that must be sealedfrom the public. |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit I(Doc. 82) | Entirety | GRANTED. This documentcontains information regardingGoodman's product development |
| that, if disclosed, could givecompetitors of Goodman an unfaircommercial advantage. | |||
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit O(Doc. 82) | Entirety | DENIED. This documentconcerns a design modificationthat was implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that hasentered the market, the changes arealready subject to public scrutiny.Documents evincing the changestherefore do not satisfy either the"good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. Finally, thisdesign change was publiclydisclosed in Paul J. Sikorsky'stestimony. See (Doc. 80 at 12-13). |
|---|---|---|---|
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit P(Doc. 82) | Entirety | DENIED. This documentconcerns a design modificationthat was implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that hasentered the market, the changes arealready subject to public scrutiny.Documents evincing the changestherefore do not satisfy either the"good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. Finally, thisdesign change was publiclydisclosed in Paul J. Sikorsky'stestimony. See (Doc. 80 at 12-13). |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit R(Doc. 82) | Entirety | DENIED. This document does notdescribe a Goodmanmanufacturing or design processthat warrants sealing under eitherthe "good cause" or "compellinginterests" standard. |
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit S(Doc. 82) | Entirety | DENIED. This documentconcerns a design modificationthat was implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that hasentered the market, the changes are |
| already subject to public scrutiny.Consequently, documents evincingthe changes do not satisfy eitherthe "good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. | |||
| 77 | Tostrud Exhibit T(Doc. 82) | Entirety | DENIED. This documentconcerns a design modificationthat was implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that hasentered the market, the changes arealready subject to public scrutiny.Consequently, documents evincingthe changes do not satisfy eitherthe "good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | Plaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 107) | Page 3, lines 22-23;Page 3, lines 27-28 | DENIED. These portions ofPlaintiff's reply relate to designmodifications that wereimplemented years ago. BecauseGoodman physically modified aproduct that has since entered themarket, the changes are alreadysubject to public scrutiny.Consequently, documents evincingthe changes do not satisfy eitherthe "good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. |
| 106 | Exhibit C toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | Paragraph 3 ofTuesday, November17, 2009, 8:36 AMe-mail from NeelGupte, beginningwith "George,Vinny is workingon . . . ." and endingwith ". . . but it hasbeen done." | GRANTED. This paragraphdiscusses confidential designinformation the disclosure ofwhich could give competitors ofGoodman and unfair competitiveadvantage. |
| 106 | Exhibit C toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification | All else | DENIED. The remainder of thisdocument concerns a designmodification that wasimplemented years ago. BecauseGoodman physically modified a |
| (Doc. 108) | product that has since entered themarket, the changes are alreadysubject to public scrutiny.Consequently, documents evincingthe changes do not satisfy eitherthe "good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. | ||
| 106 | Exhibit K toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | Entirety | GRANTED. This documentreflects confidential informationregarding internal analyses ofproducts and materials used inmanufacturing Goodman products.If disclosed, this document couldgive competitors of Goodman anunfair commercial advantage. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | Exhibit M toPlaintiff's Replyin Support ofMotion for ClassCertification(Doc. 108) | Entirety | DENIED. This documentconcerns a design modificationthat was implemented years ago.Because Goodman physicallymodified a product that has sinceentered the market, the changes arealready subject to public scrutiny.Consequently, documents evincingthe changes do not satisfy eitherthe "good cause" or "compellingreasons" standard. |
Citations are to the sections of the documents as set forth in the motions to seal. --------
C. Goodman's Pricing Information
Goodman also seeks to seal Exhibit H to Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification arguing that the document references confidential pricing information. (Doc. 106). The Court finds that the details contained in Exhibit H are sensitive information that justifies sealing. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (permitting a party to file under seal the pricing terms of a licensing agreement).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing Portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Supporting Evidence (Doc. 77) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Goodman's Motion to File under Seal: (1) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support, and Portions of Certain Exhibits Thereto; and (2) Portions of Defendants' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 86) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing Portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 93) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing (1) Portions of Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification; and (2) Certain Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 106) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file under seal the documents lodged at Docket Nos. 94, 100, 101, 109, and 110.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a Notice of Compliance appended with versions of the documents at Docket Nos. 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 92, 107, and 108 that are redacted in accordance with this Order.
Dated this 1st day of February, 2016.
/s/_________
James A. Teilborg
Senior United States District Judge
Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *9. Whether Auto Safety will be reheard by the Ninth Circuit en banc is unknown as of the date of this Order.