Scherer v. FCA US, LLC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUCAS SCHERER and AMANDA Case No.: 20-cv-02009-AJB-BLM SCHERER, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiffs, 13 MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. No. 124) v. 14 FCA US, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ supplemental briefing in support of their joint motion 20 to file documents under seal. (Doc. No. 124.) The parties wish to file the redacted 21 Supplemental Declaration of Payam Shahian, with attached exhibits A through E, in 22 support of Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses. 23 (Doc. No. 118 at 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the parties’ 24 motion. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 This is a “Lemon Law” lawsuit under the Song Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code 27 § 1794(d), regarding Plaintiffs’ 2018 Chrysler Pacifica, identification number 28 2C4RC1EGXJR351970, that Plaintiffs purchased for $50,141.28. (Doc. No. 75 at 5.) 1 On November 1, 2021, the parties entered into a modified protective order permitting 2 them to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” information that qualifies for protection under 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 55 at 1–2.) The protective order also 4 permits the parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY” 5 documents they, in good faith, believe contain trade secrets or other confidential research 6 or information. (Id. at 1.) 7 The parties now seek to seal information that describes and refers to confidential 8 documents and testimony deemed “Subject to Protective Order” by Defendant FCA US, 9 LLC. (Doc. No. 118 at 4–5; Doc. No. 124.) The redacted version of the Supplemental 10 Shahian Declaration was filed with Plaintiffs’ reply papers and is part of the record at 11 Docket No. 96. On September 22, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice the parties’ 12 joint motion to seal. (Doc. No. 121.) The Court invited the parties to provide supplemental 13 briefing regarding any exhibits for which sealing was denied without prejudice. (Id.) The 14 parties thereafter submitted the instant Supplemental Briefing in Support of Joint Motion 15 to Seal. (Doc. No. 124.) 16 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 17 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 18 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 19 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 20 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 21 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 22 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 23 overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 24 justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 25 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of 26 the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 27 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its 28 decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 1 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 2 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted). 3 On non-dispositive motions, a party seeking to file under seal a document need only 4 establish “good cause” exists for sealing the record. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. 5 Annuity Sales Prac. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Kamakana, 6 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). Numerous district courts within the 7 Ninth Circuit have concluded that the “good cause” standard applies to motions to seal 8 documents relating to a motion for attorneys’ fees. Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 9 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6395528, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2020); see, e.g., In re 10 Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *33 11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (applying good cause standard because issues in attorneys’ fees 12 motion were only tangentially related to the merits of the case); MacDonald v. Ford Motor 13 Co., No. 13-CV-02988-JST, 2016 WL 7826647, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016) (same); 14 TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 5116721, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 15 Aug. 28, 2015) (applying good cause standard “[b]ecause Defendant’s motion for 16 attorneys’ fees and costs is a nondispositive motion.”) 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 The parties seek permission to seal the following documents as they allegedly 19 contain FCA’s confidential documents and testimony: Exhibits A through E to the 20 Supplemental Shahian Declaration, as well as portions of the declaration reproducing said 21 exhibits. (Doc. No. 118 at 4.) Each exhibit is an email chain internal to FCA, all of which 22 were designated as confidential and subject to the Protective Order by FCA. (Id.) The 23 parties allege these constitute confidential business information as they contain FCA’s 24 proprietary information which has not been previously disclosed in any litigation. (Id. at 25 5.) Specifically, FCA asserts the contents of these company emails contain technical, 26 commercially sensitive information exchanged internally by FCA’s team of engineers, and 27 reflect FCA’s intellectual property. (Doc. No. 124 at 3.) 28 Although the documents are subject to a Protective Order, the Court does not take 1 || that into consideration on this Motion to Seal and will only grant the Motion if compelling 2 ||reasons are shown. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard 3 invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under 4 ||seal or protective order.’’). 5 Where a party shows that its documents contain sources of business information that 6 ||might harm its competitive standing, the need for public access to the records is lessened. 7 Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The Court is satisfied that 8 ||the parties have demonstrated good cause to warrant sealing. The parties assert that FCA 9 || will suffer serious competitive harm if the internal company emails are revealed to the 10 || public. Public disclosure of FCA’s confidential business material, safety investigations, 11 ||software improvements could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to 12 ||replicate FCA business practices and circumvent the time and resources necessary in 13 developing their own practices and strategies. Moreover, the Court finds that the parties 14 || only seek to seal a limited amount of information. Accordingly, the Courts finds the parties 15 have shown good cause to seal Exhibits A through E to the Supplemental Shahian 16 || Declaration, as well as the portions of the declaration reproducing said exhibits. 17 || IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to seal. 19 ||(Doc. Nos. 118, 124.) The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the currently sealed lodged 20 || proposed Supplemental Declaration of Payam Shahian in Support of Plaintiff's Reply in 21 Support of their Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Expenses under seal. (Doc. No. 112.) 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 19, 2022 © Jer : 25 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 26 United States District Judge 27 28