Serenium, Inc. v. Zhou ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SERENIUM, INC., Case No. 20-cv-02132-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL AT ECF 66 10 JASON ZHOU, et al., [Re: ECF 66] 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to file under seal the final arbitral award 14 issued in the Beijing International Arbitration Center arbitration proceeding between New Century 15 Healthcare (International) Holding Co. Limited and Plaintiff Serenium, Inc., along with a certified 16 English translation of the award. See ECF 66. The document sought to be sealed was filed in 17 connection with the parties’ joint notice of supplemental evidence to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. See ECF 67. For the reasons that follow, the joint motion to seal is GRANTED. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 23 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 25 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 26 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 27 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 2 Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 4 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 5 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In 6 part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 7 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 8 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 9 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 10 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing 11 of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 12 required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and the declaration of the designating 16 party submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that Defendant has articulated compelling 17 reasons to seal certain portions of the cited exhibit. The proposed redactions are generally 18 narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing request is set forth in the table below. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ECF No. | Document to Be Sealed | Result Reasoning 2 The parties are bound by the rules of the □□□□□□□□ Arbitration Commission, which require that all 3 proceedings be kept confidential. See ECF 66 a 3. Specifically, Article 25 provides that “[w]het 4 an arbitration is conducted in private, neither th parties, nor their authorised representatives, no! 5 . . any witnesses, arbitrators, experts consulted by 6 the Arbitral Tribunal and appraisers appointed | the Arbitral Tribunal, nor the staff of the BAC 7 shall disclose to third parties any information concerning the arbitration, whether substantive 8 procedural.” Accordingly, the compelling 9 reasons standard for sealing is satisfied. See GE Grp. AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 10 Final arbitral award issued 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (Posner, J.) (holding as a in the Beijing matter of comity that the presumption to public 11 International Arbitration access to the judicial record was overcome by a Center arbitration German arbitration rule that required 12 proceeding (2020) J. J. Z. confidentiality of the arbitration evidence, whic 5 43 Zi No.1601 between New the parties were bound by); see also Mastronar = Century Healthcare Int'l Ltd. v. Sunselect Produce (California), Inc v 14 (International) Holding 2020 WL 469351, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, □□□□ Co. Limited and (“Applying the compelling reasons standard he: 2 15 Serenium, Inc. and a Granted, the Court concludes that sealing is warranted. certified English as to entire | This is largely because the Canadian arbitration A 16 66-3 | translation of the award document | rules require confidentiality.”) 17 Z 18 Il. CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the joint motion to seal at ECF 66. 20 21 || Dated: October 26, 2020 kom hh ham én) 22 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28