Message
×
loading..

R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Pappas ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, No. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. John Pappas, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on the request of defendants John Pappas III (“Pappas”) 18 | and Meriliz, Inc., dba Dome Printing (“Dome”) to seal portions of Pappas’ Opposition to Plaintiff 19 | R.R. Donnelley’s Motion for Contempt. See Defs.’ Req. Seal, ECF No. 58. Defendants seek to 20 | comply with the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order in this trade secrets case. /d. at 2. Plaintiffs 21 | also request to seal the same portions of the same documents. See Pls.’ Req. Seal, ECF No. 61. 22 | For the reasons below, the court grants the request. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 “(T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 25 | and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 □□□□ 26 | 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Although that right is not absolute, “ ‘a strong presumption 27 | in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 28 | 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 1 (9th Cir. 2003)). This presumption “is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 2 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 3 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’ ” Ctr. for 4 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. 5 Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 6 Access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect against 7 “gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal” or to preclude court dockets 8 from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements” or “sources of business information that might 9 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (citations omitted). “Those who 10 seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high 11 threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 12 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if contents of the 13 dispositive motion or its attachments have previously been filed under seal or are covered by a 14 generalized protective order, including a discovery phase protective order. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 15 1136. 16 Here, the parties request to seal customer identity information. While the terms of their 17 discovery protective order are not sufficient grounds for sealing, “[a] customer list is one of the 18 types of information which can qualify as a trade secret.” Abba Rubber Co. v. Seaquist, 19 235 Cal.App.3d 1, 18 (1991). “This information has potential or actual value from not being 20 generally known to the public: information about customers' preferences can aid in ‘securing and 21 retaining their business.’” Brocade Commc’ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 873 F. Supp. 2d 22 1192, 1214 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911, 972 23 (C.D.Cal.2011); see also Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-02864, 24 2016 WL 4091388, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (“The customer information qualifies as trade 25 secrets . . .”). Accordingly, the court finds the parties have met the “compelling reasons” 26 standard. As recounted above, “the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute,” and 27 access in civil cases may be properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons, including the need to 28 protect against revealing “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 1 | competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Furthermore, the court notes “the redactions are 2 | narrowly tailored to seal just this information.” Johnstech Int’l Corp., 2016 WL 4091388, at *2. 3 | The court previously granted plaintiff's request to seal similar information in its original and 4 | amended complaints. See Order, ECF NO. 7. 5 II. CONCLUSION 6 For the above reasons, the parties’ requests are GRANTED and the following portions of 7 | defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt shall be sealed: 8 e Opposition to Motion for Contempt: pg. 6, lines 23-24; pg. 8, line 8; pg. 13, lines 15-17; 9 e Declaration of Dylan W. Wiseman: pg. 3, line 3; pg. 4, lines 6-8; entire Exhibit A; entire 10 Exhibit B; and 11 e Declaration of John Pappas III: pg. 2, lines 22-23; pg. 4, line 21. 12 Either party or the public may move to unseal these portions upon a requisite showing. 13 This order resolves ECFs 58 and 60. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | DATED: June 3, 2022 16 7 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:21-cv-00753

Filed Date: 6/6/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024