Guzman v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ADRIANA GUZMAN, et al., Case No. 17-cv-02606-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 103 10 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal an exhibit 14 filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 15 No. 103. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to file under seal. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 8 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 9 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 10 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 11 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 12 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 13 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 14 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 15 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 16 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 17 June 30, 2015). 18 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 19 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 20 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 21 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 22 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 23 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 24 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 25 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Because the parties seek to seal an exhibit which pertains to a summary judgment motion, 1 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, establishing that the unredacted information contains sensitive 2 and proprietary information. See Dkt. No. 105. Specifically, Defendants represent that Exhibit 3 13, the exhibit sought to be filed under seal, Dkt. No. 102-2, Ex. 13, is a services agreement that 4 discloses proprietary and non-public information about Defendants’ operations, business 5 strategies, and finances. See Dkt. No. 105. According to Defendants, public disclosure of such 6 information would cause harm to them as competitors could use the information to their 7 disadvantage. See id. at 2. 8 The Court did not rely on Exhibit 13 because the parties reached settlement, see Dkt. No. 9 124, and the summary judgment motion was denied as moot. See Dkt. No. 127. Thus, the exhibit 10 is unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s 11 interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the Court will not rule on the merits 12 of the summary judgment motion. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 13 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these 14 documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to 15 rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the exhibit divulges 16 confidential business information relating to Defendants’ operations that is unrelated to the 17 public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is 18 compelling reason and good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. 19 of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) 20 (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no 21 longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, 22 No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s 23 disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the 24 exhibit). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the administrative motion to file Exhibit 13 under seal. 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), Dkt. No. 102-2, will remain under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: 3/11/2020 6 . ° avon S. GILLIAM, JR. ib 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 & = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 4:17-cv-02606

Filed Date: 3/11/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024