Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHARLES BAIRD, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01892-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 364 10 BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to seal certain portions 14 of the parties’ briefs related to the motion to exclude expert testimony of Russell Wermers (Dkt. 15 Nos. 321-3, 333-3, 336- 4) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 364. 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 19 the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 20 records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 21 favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 22 overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 23 dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 24 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 25 public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178- 26 79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 27 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 1 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 2 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the 3 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 4 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 11 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 12 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 13 Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong 14 presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 15 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 16 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific 18 prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 19 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 20 “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will 21 not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation 22 omitted). 23 The Court finds that under either standard, the parties have provided a compelling interest 24 in sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential 25 business and financial information that is subject to a license agreement which imposes strict 26 requirements to keep the licensed information, and information derived from it, out of the public 27 domain. The remaining material that the parties seek to jointly file under seal reflects information 1 on October 18, 2018. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 2 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, 3 Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 4 C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial 5 information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). 6 The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed: 7 Document Page(s): Lines(s) Ruling (basis) 8 Sought to be Sealed 9 Ex. A to Boyle Declaration 23: 24-25 GRANTED. The Court has (Daubert Motion) already authorized sealing the 10 underlying material. Ex. A to Boyle Declaration 2: 6-8 GRANTED. Confidential and 11 (Daubert Motion) 7: 9-12, 25-26 proprietary information regarding 10: 11-21 securities lending business, 12 11: 1-7, 20-21 financial information, and client 13 16: 16-17, 25 relationships, including internal 17: 1-5 correspondence regarding same. 14 22: 26-27 23: 22-23 15 Ex. A to Boyle Declaration i: 19-21 GRANTED. Confidential (Daubert Motion) 17: 18-19, 22-24 references to the proprietary 16 18: 1, 2-3, 7-12, 22- database of third party. The 17 23, 24, 25-26 license for this database obliges 19: 1-2, 4, 7-10, 16- licensee and its expert to keep the 18 18, 21-22, 25 database and materials derived 20: 1, 6, 7-9, 11, 13, from it out of the public domain. 19 14-17, 19, 28 20 Ex. B to Boyle Declaration 13: 1-3, 25 GRANTED. Confidential and (BlackRock’s Opposition to 21: 13-16 24: 17 proprietary information regarding 21 Daubert Motion) securities lending business, financial information, and client 22 relationships, including internal correspondence regarding same. 23 Ex. B to Boyle Declaration i: 21-22 GRANTED. Confidential 24 (BlackRock’s Opposition to 2: 22-23 references to the proprietary Daubert Motion) 5: 15 19: 4, 6-8, 11, database of third party. The 25 14, 24-27 license for this database obliges 20: 1-3, 3-8, 11, 15- licensee and its expert to keep the 26 16, 18, 23-25 database and materials derived 21: 1-2, 5, 11, 13- from it out of the public domain. 27 16, 23 1 19-20 23: 5-6, 9, 11, 13- 2 16, 18 Ex. C to Boyle Declaration i: 17-19 GRANTED. Confidential 3 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of 12: 14-15, 17-18, 20- | references to the proprietary ply Pp Daubert Motion) 26 database of third party. The 4 13: 7-8, 12-14, 15- license for this database obliges 5 16, 18-22, 27-28 licensee and its expert to keep the 14: 4-6, 7-13, 17- 18, | database and materials derived 6 19-20, 22-25 from it out of the public domain. 7 8 I. CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 364. The Court 19 || DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents 12 filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The 5 13. || Public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions. 44 IT IS SO ORDERED. © 15 || Dated: 11/12/2020 16 Asipured 3 bbl) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 17 United States District Judge Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28