Monfort v. Adomani ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 EDWARD R MONFORT, Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED 14 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 15 ADOMANI, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 110 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 82. 19 On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment. ECF No. 85. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an administrative motion to seal 21 certain exhibits in support of his opposition brief. ECF No. 84. On November 22, 2019, the Court 22 granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s sealing motion but permitted the parties to jointly file 23 a renewed motion. ECF No. 106. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties filed their renewed 24 motion on December 6, 2019. ECF No. 110 (“Mot.”). In support of the parties’ renewed sealing 25 motion, the parties filed a declaration from Daniel-Charles Wolf. ECF No. 110-1 (“Wolf Decl.”). 26 The parties’ renewed administrative motion to seal is now before the Court. 27 The parties’ renewed motion pertains to 14 documents designated as confidential by 1 Defendants that are located at Exhibits E, F, H, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, X, Z, and 3 to the 2 Declaration of Kristen O’Connor in Support of Plaintiff Edward R. Monfort’s Response in 3 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 87 (“O’Connor Decl.”); 4 ECF No. 110-3 (redacted exhibits to O’Connor Decl.). For the reasons below, the Court 5 GRANTS the parties’ renewed administrative motion to file under seal. 6 I. LEGAL STANDARD 7 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 8 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 9 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 10 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 11 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Within the Ninth Circuit, documents that are more than “tangentially related . . . to the underlying 13 cause of action” are not sealable unless the Court agrees that “compelling reasons” exist to 14 overcome the presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 15 Here, Defendants wish to seal judicial records related to a motion for summary judgment, 16 which is a dispositive motion and thus more than “tangentially related” to the cause of action. See 17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Defendants must therefore overcome the presumption of public 18 access by offering “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 19 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 20 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Compelling reasons justifying the 21 sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 22 improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 23 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 24 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 25 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 26 court to seal its records.” Id. 27 In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties 1 requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5, including that rule’s requirement that 2 the request must “establish . . . that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable 3 as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing 4 request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 As an initial matter, Defendants state that Exhibit H, ECF No. 90-3, need not be filed 7 under seal. See Wolf Decl. at 3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES with prejudice the parties’ 8 request to seal with respect to Exhibit H. Plaintiff shall refile Exhibit H publicly consistent with 9 this order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). 10 Additionally, the parties seek to seal portions of Exhibits E, F, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, X, Z, 11 and 3 to the Declaration of Kristen O’Connor. See ECF No. 110-3. The information sought to be 12 sealed in these exhibits falls into the following categories: (1) contracts between Defendants and 13 third parties, and information provided by third parties; (ii) confidential financial information from 14 Defendants; (iii) personally identifiable information of third-party individuals, including names, 15 medical records, and financial information; and (iv) information regarding Defendants’ 16 prospective business plans, dealings and strategies, including those pertaining to Adomani’s initial 17 public offering. See Wolf Decl. The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal this 18 information. See, e.g., FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 19 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting motion to seal under the compelling to the extent it may harm 20 the party or third parties’ “competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, 21 contract negotiations, or trade secrets.”); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11-CV-640- 22 LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (finding information regarding party’s 23 “long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive analyses” 24 sealable under the compelling reasons standard); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 25 No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“The Ninth Circuit has 26 found that compelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to protect an 27 individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.” (citing Foltz v. 1 State Farm. Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003))); Benedict v. Hewlett- 2 Packard Co., No. 13-CV-00119-LHK, 22014 WL 233827, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) 3 (granting motion to seal confidential customer information, including address, phone number, and 4 email address); Transperfect Global, Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., No. C 10-2590 CW, 2013 WL 5 209678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013) (granting motion to seal exhibits that contained 6 proprietary information about the sealing party’s internal business operations). Furthermore, the 7 parties’ request is narrowly tailored because the requested sealing includes only those categories 8 of information. Accordingly, the parties’ request to seal the remaining exhibits is GRANTED. 9 In sum, the Court rules on the parties’ renewed motion to seal as follows: 10 Specific Document Specific Portion Ruling 11 O’Connor Decl., 180:14–20, 181:17–182:24, 202:25–203:2 GRANTED Exhibit E 12 O’Connor Decl., 9:25–10:12, 100:22–101:5, 216:17–217:10, GRANTED 13 Exhibit F 161:17–162:1, 165:3–8, 165:12–13, 165:21–22, 165:24–25, 166:6–7, 166:10–11, 166:18–19, 14 166:23, 166:25–167:1, 167:5–6, 167:8–9, 204:16–17, 214:18–22 15 O’Connor Decl., N/A – Defendant does not seek to seal this DENIED with 16 Exhibit H document prejudice 17 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at L.3–L.8 GRANTED Exhibit L 18 O’Connor Decl., 200:24–201:6 GRANTED 19 Exhibit M 20 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0093642–0093651 GRANTED Exhibit N 21 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at O.1–O.4 GRANTED 22 Exhibit O 23 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0054041 GRANTED Exhibit P 24 25 O Ex’C hio bn itn Ror Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0085013–0085016 GRANTED 26 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0006418–0006423 GRANTED Exhibit S 27 I Specific Document Specific Portion 5 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0045847-0045850 GRANTED Exhibit T 3 O’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0107732-0107898 GRANTED 4 Exhibit X 5 ©’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0129753-0129756 GRANTED Exhibit Z 6 ©’Connor Decl., Redactions at ADOM-MON_0043234—-0043243 GRANTED 7 Exhibit 3 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: January 13, 2020 D LUCY © KOH United States District Judge 14 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK