Opinion
20-cv-07683-HSG
08-09-2024
PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Plaintiff, v. COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' REVISED JOINT OMNIBUS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 359
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In light of the parties' voluminous administrative motions to seal, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a single administrative motion to seal and proposed order that consolidated all pending motions to seal. See Dkt. No. 286. Parties submitted their omnibus motion. See Dkt. No. 289. Upon review of the parties' filing, the Court determined that their sealing request was not narrowly tailored and ordered parties to file a “revised omnibus sealing order that ha[d] more narrowly tailored requests for sealing/redactions.” Dkt. No. 353. The parties filed a revised omnibus motion to seal which is now pending before the Court. Dkt. No. 359. (“Revised Omnibus Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Revised Omnibus Motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 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 28 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-79. “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 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, documents attached to non-dispositive motions are not subject to the same strong presumption of access. See id. Because such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 117980 (quotations omitted). This requires only 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); see also 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) (quotations omitted).
Because the documents are connected to the cross motions for summary judgment, which are more than tangentially related to the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard in evaluating parties' Revised Omnibus Motion.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court GRANTS the parties' Revised Omnibus Motion. The Court finds that these documents contain personally and commercially sensitive information or confidential business information that satisfies the compelling reasons standard and outweighs the public's interest in viewing the documents. See Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (stating that “[t]his Court has found compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information”); Hunt v. Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 13CV-05966, 2015 WL 5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (“Plaintiff's interest in preserving the privacy of her sensitive mental health records constitutes a compelling reason to seal”); Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. C.I.A., No. C 09-0037, 2012 WL 1094360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) (sealing exhibits containing “sensitive personal information about certain individuals, including health records”); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing confidential business information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties' business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (sealing “confidential product and business information which is not intended for public disclosure”).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the parties' motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the revised omnibus motion is granted will remain under seal. As previously stated, Parties' initially filed omnibus motion was overbroad and not narrowly tailored. Any documents that parties requested to be sealed in that initial omnibus motion that were not part of the more narrowly tailored request in this revised omnibus motion must be made available to the public. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS parties to file public versions of all documents not contemplated by the revised omnibus motion on the docket no later than August 19, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.