1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROAR SPIRITS, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-04809-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT’S JOINT MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 10 SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 33, 36 11 Defendant.

12 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff and Defendant’s joint administrative motion to file 13 under seal filed in connection with the parties’ stipulation to admit United States Patent and 14 Trademark Office record (“Joint Stipulation), Dkt. No. 33, and Defendant’s administrative motion 15 to seal filed in connection with Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 36. For the 16 reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

7 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 8 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 9 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 10 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 11 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 12 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 13 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 14 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 15 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 16 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 18 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 19 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 20 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 21 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 22

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 23 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 24 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 A. Joint Motion to Seal 27 The parties’ joint motion to seal seeks to seal limited portions of a declaration from Robert 1 were submitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in connection with 2 Opposition No. 91268314 (the “Opposition”). Dkt. No. 32. The joint motion to seal was filed in 3 connection with the parties’ Joint Stipulation, which sought to admit into evidence the USPTO 4 record from the Opposition. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33. The Court denied the Joint Stipulation, explaining 5 “[n]o Court order is required with respect to an evidentiary stipulation between the parties 6 regarding admissibility.” Dkt. No. 34. The parties’ joint motion to seal remains pending. 7 Because the Joint Stipulation is a nondispositive motion and is “only tangentially related” 8 to the underlying cause of action, the Court applies the lower “good cause” standard. 9 First, the Court denied the Joint Stipulation, meaning the Court never substantively 10 considered the exhibits the parties seek to seal. Where the court does not consider materials that a 11 party has requested to seal, the public’s interest their disclosure is minimal since they do not aid 12 the public’s understanding of judicial proceedings. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11- 13 MD-02250- LHK,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in 14 accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not 15 have occasion to rule on [the relevant motion].”); see also Economus v. City & Cty. of San 16 Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG,

, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding 17 compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer 18 related to the case); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12- CV-689-MMA-DHB,

, 19 at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the 20 matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit). Such is the case here. 21 Second, the Torkelson declaration and opposition brief contain confidential financial 22 information related to Defendant’s generated sales and marketing expenses, and this information, 23 if disclosed, could be used to the detriment of Defendant, a privately held company.1 Courts have 24 found that “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” 25 satisfy the more stringent “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler, LLC, 26

(9th Cir. 2016); see also Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 12-cv-3000-AJB 27 1 (DHB),

, *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (finding compelling reasons where 2 access to marketing and sales data “may result in improper use by competitors who may 3 circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining the information”); Rodman v. Safeway, 4 Inc., No. 11-CV-03003-JST,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) (finding 5 sealable “internal information not otherwise made available” regarding business “transaction and 6 customer data”). Defendant’s confidential financial information therefore satisfies the “good 7 cause” standard. Further, the parties’ request is narrowly tailored and only seeks to seal portions 8 of the Torkelson declaration and opposition brief containing confidential financial information. 9 Because the Torkelson declaration and opposition brief divulge confidential business 10 information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, the 11 Court finds the parties’ have established good cause to file the documents under seal. 12 B. Defendant’s Motion to Seal 13 Defendant’s motion to seal seeks to seal the same portions of the Torkelson declaration 14 identified in the joint motion to seal.2 Dkt. No. 36. Because the motion for summary judgment is 15 dispositive and is more than “tangentially related” to the underlying action, the Court applies the 16 “compelling reasons” standard. 17 As explained above, the Court finds the confidential information contained in the 18 Torkelson declaration satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See supra Section II.A. 19 Additionally, Defendant’s proposed redactions “are the least restrictive [] to protect its 20 confidential information and are narrowly tailored to seal only sealable materials as required by 21 Civil Local Rule 79-5.” Dkt. No. 36 at 3. Defendant’s proposed redactions strike an appropriate 22 balance between redacting financially sensitive information that could harm Defendant, while also 23 providing the public with sufficient information to understand the contours of this dispute. 24 Because the Torkelson declaration divulges confidential business information unrelated to 25 the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, the Court finds that Defendant 26 has established compelling reasons to file the document under seal. 27 I. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file under seal. Dkt. Nos. 33, 36. 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 3 motion is granted will remain under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 2/18/2025

7 ee 5. GILLIAM, JR. ib □ g United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

14

15

A 16 & 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28