Opinion
Case No. 16-cv-01702-BLF
08-07-2017
NEWMARK REALTY CAPITAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. BGC PARTNERS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal certain exhibits in connection to a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF 95. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 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 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motions relate to a motion for preliminary injunction, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motions are resolved under the compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-2 (holding that "public access will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" and finding that a "motion for preliminary injunction is more than tangentially related to the merits"). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). The compelling reasons standard must be met even as to documents that were previously filed under seal or protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:
| ECFNo. | Document to beSealed | Result | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95-3 | Exhibits 20.1 - 20.3to Barry Gosin Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthese exhibits in their entirety. See Civ. L.R.79-5(e). |
| 95-3 | Exhibits 20.4 - 20.7to Barry Gosin Decl. | GRANTED. | The entirety of Exhibits 20.4 - 20.7 containsthe parties' confidential settlementdiscussions. See Manes Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 95-1. |
| 95-4 | Exhibit 21 to BarryGosin Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-6 | Exhibit 1 to MichaelIppolito Decl. | GRANTED asto highlightedportions. | The highlighted portions contain confidentialfinancial and business information relating toDefendants' client, the disclosure of whichwould harm the competitiveness ofDefendants and their clients. See Manes Decl.¶ 5. |
| 95-8 | Exhibit 3 to MichaelIppolito Decl. | GRANTED asto highlightedportions. | The highlighted portions contain confidentialfinancial and business information relating toDefendants' client, the disclosure of whichwould harm the competitiveness ofDefendants and their clients. See Manes Decl.¶ 6. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95-9 | Exhibit 4 to MichaelIppolito Decl. | GRANTED. | The entirety of the exhibit containsconfidential business strategy communicationsbetween Defendants and their client, thedisclosure of which would harm thecompetitiveness of Defendants and theirclients. See Manes Decl. ¶ 7. |
| 95-10 | Exhibits 5.1 - 5.4 toMichael IppolitoDecl. | GRANTED. | The exhibits contain confidential agreementsbetween Defendants and their clients, thedisclosure of which would harm thecompetitiveness of Defendants. See ManesDecl. ¶ 8. |
| 95-11 | Exhibit 1 (Part 1) toZach Schnoll Decl. | GRANTED. | The exhibit contains confidential informationrelating to Defendants' fee structures,disclosure of which would harm thecompetitiveness of Defendants. See ManesDecl. ¶ 9. |
| 95-12 | Exhibit 1 (Part 2) toZach Schnoll Decl. | GRANTED. | The exhibit contains confidential informationrelating to Defendants' fee structures,disclosure of which would harm thecompetitiveness of Defendants. See ManesDecl. ¶ 9. |
| 95-14 | Exhibit 2 to DanielleWelsh Decl. | GRANTED asto highlightedportions. | The highlighted portions contain confidentialfinancial and business information relating toDefendants' client, the disclosure of whichwould harm the competitiveness ofDefendants and their clients. See Manes Decl.¶ 10. |
| 95-16 | Exhibit 5 to DanielleWelsh Decl. | GRANTED asto highlightedportions. | The highlighted portions contain confidentialfinancial and business information relating toDefendants' client, the disclosure of whichwould harm the competitiveness ofDefendants and their clients. See Manes Decl.¶ 11. |
| 95-18 | Exhibit 6 to DanielleWelsh Decl. | GRANTED asto highlightedportions. | The highlighted portions contain confidentialfinancial and business information relating toDefendants' client, the disclosure of whichwould harm the competitiveness ofDefendants and their clients. See Manes Decl.¶ 12. |
| 95-20 | Exhibit 1 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-21 | Exhibit 7.2 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-22 | Exhibit 10 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-23 | Exhibit 16.3 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-24 | Exhibits 18.2 - 18.3to Ryan BrickerDecl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthese exhibits in their entirety. |
| 95-25 | Exhibit 28.3 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
| 95-26 | Exhibit 39.3 to RyanBricker Decl. | DENIED. | Plaintiff is the designating party but nodeclaration has been filed in support of sealingthis exhibit in its entirety. |
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 95 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to the documents for which the motion is denied, the motion may be renewed with a declaration setting forth a compelling reason in support of the motion. The motion shall be renewed no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. If the motion is not renewed in time or if no declaration is submitted within four days of the filing of the renewed motion, Defendants shall file the unredacted documents in the public record. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1), (2).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2017
/s/_________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge