Domaine Carneros, Ltd v. Lea Trading LLC

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION DOMAINE CARNEROS, LTD, Case No. 24-cv-01834-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 10 LEA TRADING LLC, et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 30, 34] 11 Defendants.

13 Before the court are two administrative motions: 14 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be 15 Sealed. ECF No. 30.

16 2. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be 17 Sealed. ECF No. 34.

18 For the reasons described below, the administrative motions at ECF Nos. 30 and 34 are GRANTED.

20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “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 24 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.

26 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 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 2 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

3 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” however, 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).

15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Defendant Lea Trading LLC filed ECF No. 30 on July 1, 2024 and ECF No. 34 on July 11, 2024. Plaintiff Domaine Carneros, Ltd. submitted two declarations, one for each motion. ECF Nos. 35, 36.

19 Plaintiff seeks to seal the same portions of two identical exhibits (the same eight-page document found at ECF Nos. 30-2 and 34-2) attached to Defendant’s administrative motion to file a sur-reply and Defendant’s sur-reply. Id. The Court considers the two administrative motions and the corresponding declarations together.

23 Plaintiff writes that the information should be sealed because it “contain[s] the personal shipping address and personal billing address of a nonparty declarant” and “[t]he redaction of such personal contact information will protect the declarant’s privacy interests and protect her from harm.” Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 4.

27 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by sensitive, personal || identifying information). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.

3 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 4 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal 5 Exhibit No. 30-2 and Highlighted portions on GRANTED, as the document 6 34-2 pages 2-8 contains the personal contact information of a nonparty 7 declarant, disclosure of which g may result in harm.

9 Il. ORDER 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. ECF No. 30 is GRANTED.

12 2. ECF No. 34 is GRANTED

14 Dated: July 23, 2024 15 Aawnachat BETH LABSON FREEMAN a 16 United States District Judge = 17 Z 18