Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MASTRONARDI INTERNATIONAL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00737-AWI-JLT LIMITED, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 REQUEST TO SEAL v. 10 SUNSELECT PRODUCE (Doc. No. 45) 11 (CALIFORNIA), INC., 12 Defendant. 13 I. Introduction 14 Plaintiff Mastronardi International Limited (“Mastronardi”) filed a motion for an anti- 15 arbitration injunction against Defendant SunSelect Produce (California), Inc., (“SunSelect”). See 16 Doc. No. 40. Mastronardi’s motion asks the Court to enjoin SunSelect from participating in an 17 arbitration proceeding that is pending between Mastronardi and SunSelect in Canada and, 18 according to Mastronardi, involves the same allegations and claims underlying this lawsuit. 19 Mastronardi’s motion is pending before the Court. In response to Mastronardi’s motion, 20 SunSelect filed an opposition brief. In conjunction with filing its opposition brief, SunSelect also 21 asked the Court to seal certain documents that, according to SunSelect, are relevant to the 22 opposition brief but must remain confidential. See Doc. No. 45. SunSelect’s sealing request is 23 now before the Court. 24 The certain documents that SunSelect wants to file under seal are, first, documents 25 concerning the aforementioned arbitration proceeding and, second, an unredacted version of 26 SunSelect’s aforementioned opposition brief. The unredacted version of SunSelect’s opposition 27 brief reveals and discusses certain information about the arbitration proceeding, and that 28 information was redacted by SunSelect in the redacted version of the opposition brief. See Doc. 1 No. 44 (SunSelect’s redacted version of the opposition brief). As for the documents concerning 2 the arbitration proceeding, those documents include the following: (1) a declaration from Thomas 3 Moran, who is SunSelect’s attorney in the arbitration proceeding, that discusses the procedural 4 history of the arbitration proceeding; (2) the “arbitration notice,” which discusses the dispute and 5 requested remedies underlying the arbitration proceeding, and which includes a copy of the tomato 6 agreement entered into between SunSelect and Mastronardi; (3) the “Statement of Claim” in the 7 arbitration proceeding, which discusses the allegations and claims underlying the arbitration 8 proceeding; (4) multiple written orders from the arbitration tribunal concerning the tribunal’s 9 jurisdiction, the parties’ arbitration discovery disputes, and the procedural schedule for the 10 arbitration proceeding; and (5) discovery requests and objections made in the arbitration 11 proceeding. 12 SunSelect’s argument for why sealing is warranted goes as follows. In order for SunSelect 13 to demonstrate to the Court that Mastronardi’s requested anti-arbitration injunction should not be 14 issued against SunSelect, SunSelect must present to the Court certain facts and evidence 15 concerning the arbitration proceeding. This is because, according to the Ninth Circuit’s anti-suit 16 injunction standard, a key inquiry for the Court is whether the allegations and claims in the 17 arbitration proceeding are functionally the same as the allegations and claims in this lawsuit. If 18 the allegations and claims are not the same, then an anti-arbitration injunction is not warranted 19 under the Ninth Circuit’s standard. Here, however, the facts and evidence that SunSelect must 20 present to the Court in order to address this key inquiry — namely, the facts and evidence 21 concerning the arbitration proceeding — are confidential. They are confidential because the 22 Canadian tribunal that is adjudicating the arbitration proceeding, the British Columbia 23 International Commercial Arbitration Centre, requires SunSelect and Mastronardi to keep 24 confidential: (1) all evidence and materials created for the purpose of the arbitration proceeding; 25 (2) all documents produced in the arbitration proceeding; and (3) the eventual arbitration award. 26 Therefore, SunSelect must file these facts and evidence under seal, not publicly, as required by the 27 arbitration tribunal. 28 1 II. Discussion 2 All documents filed with the Court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 3 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “[T]he courts of this country 4 recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 5 records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 6 Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 7 burden of overcoming the strong public access presumption. Id. 8 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents: the “compelling reasons” 9 standard for documents directly related to the underlying causes of action, such as documents 10 attached to summary judgment briefs, and the lesser “good cause” standard for documents only 11 tangentially related to the underlying causes of action, such as some discovery documents: 12 [J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the 13 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing 14 under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. 15 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); 16 see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1098; Pintos, 605 F.3d at 677. 17 Here SunSelect assumes that the compelling reasons standard is the applicable standard for 18 its sealing request. See “SunSelect’s Confidential Request to Seal Documents.” Because 19 SunSelect implicitly asks the Court to apply the compelling reasons standard, and because the 20 compelling reasons standard results in greater access to the public, the Court will apply the 21 compelling reasons standard to SunSelect’s sealing request. See also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 22 F.3d at 1100-01 (recognizing that the compelling reasons standard may apply to motions for 23 preliminary injunctions because such motions may directly concern the merits of the lawsuit). 24 Applying the compelling reasons standard here, the Court concludes that sealing is 25 warranted. This is largely because the Canadian arbitration rules require confidentiality. The 26 relevant rule from the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre states, 27 Unless the parties expressly agree in writing to the contrary, the parties agree to 28 keep confidential all awards arising from the proceedings, together with all 1 documents produced by another party in the proceeding not otherwise in the public domain, except and to the extent that disclosure is required by law, is 2 required to protect or pursue a legal right or is required to enforce or challenge an award in legal proceedings before a court or other competent judicial authority. 3 The British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre, International Commercial 4 Arbitration Rules of Procedure, Art. 18(3) (2000). Because the parties appear to be bound by this 5 rule in their Canadian arbitration proceeding, the compelling reasons standard for sealing is 6 satisfied, subject to the limitations noted infra. GEA Grp. AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 7 411, 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (Posner, J.) (holding as a matter of comity that the presumption to public 8 access to the judicial record was overcome by a German arbitration rule that required 9 confidentiality of the arbitration evidence, which the parties were bound by). 10 The Court warns the parties that the foregoing arbitration confidentiality rule has its limits 11 in this lawsuit. Facts and evidence that are introduced in the arbitration proceeding will not 12 necessarily be allowed to be kept confidential in this lawsuit if those facts and evidence are 13 material to deciding the merits of this lawsuit. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098. 14 Additionally, when the Court rules on Mastronardi’s pending anti-arbitration injunction motion, 15 the Court will likely consider and discuss some of the facts of the arbitration proceeding, as is 16 required by the Ninth Circuit’s anti-suit injunction standard. See Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, 17 Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating that the first inquiry for determining whether an 18 anti-suit injunction is warranted is determining whether the issues in the two actions are the same). 19 See also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1100-01 (“Case law is also replete with examples of 20 motions for preliminary injunctions that reflect the need for the public right of access — to 21 provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better 22 perception of its fairness.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 23 ORDER 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. SunSelect’s request to seal is GRANTED; 26 2. The Clerk of Court shall FILE UNDER SEAL the following documents: 27 a. “SunSelect’s Confidential Request to Seal Documents,” (PDF pages 1-5); 28 1 b. “Exhibit 1,” (PDF pages 6-32), which is the unredacted version of “SunSelect’s 2 Opposition to Mastronardi’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction”; 3 c. “Exhibit 2,” (PDF pages 33-120), which includes: (1) the declaration from 4 Thomas Moran; (2) the “arbitration notice”; (3) the “Statement of Claim” in the 5 arbitration proceeding; (4) the multiple written orders from the arbitration 6 tribunal; and (5) discovery requests and objections made in the arbitration 7 proceeding. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ 19 | Dated: _ January 28, 2020 ZS Cb □□ — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ec