The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ASHTON WOODS HOLDINGS L.L.C., et Case No. 15-cv-01247-HSG
al.,
8 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED
Plaintiffs, MOTION TO SEAL
9
v. Re: Dkt. No. 72
10
USG CORPORATION, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to file under seal portions of two of the three exhibits that
14 were the subject of Plaintiffs’ previous motion to seal. Dkt. No. 72. For the reasons articulated
15 below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
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).
1 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
2 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This
3 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information
4 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th
5 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
6 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
7 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
8 II. DISCUSSION
9 On October 13, 2020, Defendants requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
10 the MDL Court’s summary judgment ruling on choice of law. Dkt. No. 59. Plaintiffs previously
11 filed an administrative motion to file documents under seal in connection with Defendants’ motion
12 for leave to move for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 61. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to file under
13 seal the entirety of the summary judgment briefs, Exhibits 1-3 to the Declaration of Diane
14 Doolittle. See Dkt. No. 61-4 (Ex. 1); Dkt. No. 61-5 (Ex. 2); Dkt. No. 61-6 (Ex. 3). The Court
15 denied Plaintiffs’ motion because Plaintiffs failed to narrowly tailor their requests to only cover
16 the portions of the exhibits that refer directly to confidential and proprietary business information.
17 Dkt. No. 71. Plaintiffs now file a renewed motion seeking to seal select portions of Defendant’s
18 Opening Summary Judgment Brief and Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief. Dkt. No. 72. Because
19 Plaintiffs move to file documents related to Defendants’ motion to reconsider the MDL court’s
20 summary judgment ruling, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard.
21 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have narrowly tailored their requests to only cover the
22 portions of the exhibits that refer directly to confidential and proprietary business information, or
23 sensitive personally identifiable information. As to Defendant’s Opening Summary Judgment
24 Brief, Plaintiffs move to seal a single image that “details the ways in which Plaintiffs . . .
25 purchased wallboard, through what entities, and where.” Id. at 4. The public release of this
26 information could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298
27 F.App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources
1 Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). As to Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief, Plaintiffs
2 ||} move to seal two phone numbers associated with Defendants’ employees. Id. The Court also
3 finds that compelling reasons exist to seal this potentially sensitive identifying information. See
4 Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. Motors LLC, No. 17-CV-03874-LHK,
5 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (ordering sealing where documents contained
6 “personally identifiable information of third-party individuals, including” phone numbers).
7 Wl. CONCLUSION
8 Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established compelling reasons to seal the
9 || limited portions of the exhibits, Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to file under seal is GRANTED. The
10 Court DIRECTS Plaintiffs to file redacted versions of these documents on the public docket
11 within seven days of this order.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 || Dated: 2/8/2021
3 15 Abppund 3 Mb).
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
= 16 United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28