RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. v. Recycle Track Systems, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 7 — NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 8 — — 9 — 10 ROADRUNNER RECYCLING, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 23-04804 WHA 12 v. 13 RECYCLE TRACK SYSTEMS, INC. and ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL RECYCLESMART SOLUTIONS, INC., — 14 — Defendants. — 15 — — 16 — 17 This order addresses the motions to seal and supporting declarations (Dkt. Nos. 95, 98, 18 101, 105, 109, 110) that stem from the recent discovery dispute (Dkt. Nos. 94, 99–100, 102). 19 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. 20 The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not). 21 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only for “compelling 23 reasons.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 , 1101–02 (9th Cir.), cert. 24 denied, 580 U.S. 815 (2016). That “standard applies to most judicial records,” with a “good 25 cause” standard applying otherwise. Id. at 1098 (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 26 F.3d 665 , 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied sub nom. Experian Info. Sols., Inc. v. Pintos, — 27 — 562 U.S. 1134 (2011)). Parties seeking to seal filings in this district must also follow basic 2. MOTION TO SEAL STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY LETTER RE 1 SPOLIATION. 2 A. PLAINTIFF’S LETTER. 3 Plaintiff RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. filed a discovery letter on September 5, 2024 4 alleging spoliation (Dkt. No. 94). It moved to seal defendants’ material within (Dkt. No. 95). 5 Defendants Recycle Track Systems, Inc. and RecycleSmart Solutions, Inc. timely filed a 6 declaration supporting the sealing motion (Dkt. No. 109). This order rules as follows: Pub. 8 Dkt. No. | Plaintiffs Yellow The passage proposed for redaction 95-4 September 5, | highlights, “paraphrase[s]” testimony respecting 9 (94) 2024 DENIED. defendants’ Pello technology (Dkt. No. 109-1 Discovery at □ 4). But that information was elsewhere 10 Letter disclosed (e.g., Sept. 11, 2024 Tr. 3:21—4:2). Dkt. No. | Exh. C, Entirety, The entirety proposed for sealing includes 95-3 Yahya Laraki | DENIED. portions directly related to the discovery a 12 (94-3) Deposition dispute, which ultimately contests the need for Transcript a jury instruction that could decide the merits. 13 Excerpts The compelling interests standard thus applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098— 14 1100. The rationale for redaction 1s that the B15 testimony is subject to a protective order (Dkt. No. 109-1 at § 3). But “[a] protective order [i]s 16 not a guarantee of confidentiality” for court filings. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. And s 17 RoadRunner wholly failed to tailor redactions 6 to plausibly sealable material, as required. See 18 Civil L.R. 79-5(c), (f)(3). Beyond proposing to 19 seal opening pleasantries, it proposes to redact passages that relate to the dispute, that do not 20 disclose anything remotely warranting redaction, and that were retold in court, e.g.: 21 Q. And when you say you didn’t migrate them, what happened to — 22 what happened to the — what happened 23 to the data when it wasn’t migrated? A. It was deleted. 24 Q. It was? A. It was deleted, or non-migrated, to 25 be more precise. 6 (Dkt. No. 95-3 at 65:12—19; cf Sept. 11, 2024 Tr. 17:17—17:21). Facially overbroad 27 redactions may be rejected facially: Were there anything more specific worth sealing, 28 RoadRunner did not meet its burden to say so. 1 B. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE. 2 Systems, Inc. and Solutions, Inc. responded to the spoliation letter (Dkt. No. 100). They 3 also moved to seal their material within (Dkt. No. 101). This order rules as follows: Pub. 5 Dkt. No. | Defendants’ Yellow The proposed redaction obscures sky-high 101-3 Response to highlights, generalizations about basic case contentions. 6 (100) Plaintiff's DENIED. The brief in support provides only a boilerplate September 5, rationale for redactions (see Dkt. No. 101 at 3). 7 2024 And it is not backed up specifically by the 8 Discovery sworn declaration (see Dkt. No. 101-1 at 2). Letter The subject matter here was also aired in court. 9 Dkt. No. | Exhibit 4, Entirety, Proposed redactions are highlighted, yet 101-4 Yahya Laraki | DENIED. defendants move to seal the entire document. 10 (100-5) | Deposition The excerpts give a high-level account of how Transcript defendants purportedly developed their 1 Excerpts competing technology. As above, the brief in 12 support provides only a boilerplate rationale, and was not backed up by the declaration. And & 13 the subject matter was aired in court. Also, 3 defendants argue there are no trade secrets in 14 the case respecting such technologies (see, e.g., Sept. 11, 2024 Tr. 19:3—7). That argument 15 undercuts their credibility in simultaneously 5 16 asserting the purported secrecy and harm from disclosure of their technology development. 2 17 = 3. MOTION TO SEAL STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY LETTER RE 7 18 DEPOSITION. 19 A, DEFENDANTS’ LETTER. 20 Systems, Inc. and Solutions, Inc. in turn filed a discovery letter on September 6, 2024 21 seeking more time for a deposition (Dkt. No. 99). They also moved to seal plaintiff's material 22 within (Dkt. No. 98). RoadRunner timely filed a document regarding the sealing motion (Dkt. 23 No. 110). But that document declined to support redactions (ibid.). For avoidance of doubt, 24 defendants’ motion to seal plaintiff's material is therefore DENIED. 25 B. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE. 26 RoadRunner responded to the deposition letter (Dkt. No. 102). It also moved to seal its 27 material within its response (Dkt. No. 105). This order rules as follows: — 28 — Pub. 2 Dkt. No. | Exh. A., Yellow Proposed redactions cover parts of a two-and105-3 Email from highlights, a-half year-old, bullet-pointed operating plan. 3 (102-1) Gates to DENIED. The purported rationale is that “it contains Chehebar on descriptions of product-specific financial 4 March 13, accounting, business strategy, and financial 5 2022 at strategy” (Dkt. No. 105-1 § 4). If that sufficed 12:49:54 P.M. to support redactions, most of this litigation 6 would soon be sealed from the public. And as broad as that rationale is, some redactions go 7 beyond it. Parties have been told to articulate a specific, factual basis for sealing and to tailor 8 redactions to it. RoadRunner failed to do so. 9 Dkt. No. | Exh. C, Entirety, Proposed redactions are highlighted, yet 105-4 Gates DENIED. RoadRunner seeks to seal the entirety. It 10 (102-3) | Deposition purports to do so for the reasons above, and Transcript because “[it] also discusses projections and the 11 Excerpts confidential methods in which Compology calculated its financial projections” (ibid.). 12 Sealing this full filing is facially unreasonable. 2B And the district court and its staff will not □□ sponte review the excerpts line by line to come 14 up with passages and reasons to seal more specific than those RoadRunner cared to give. 2 15 “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of 16 - : sealing bears the burden with respect to 17 sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. o 18 CONCLUSION 19 The motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 95, 98, 101, 105) are DENIED. All related filings must be 20 re-filed publicly and without redactions by SEPTEMBER 20, 2024. Relatedly, the Court awaits 21 RoadRunner’s omnibus sealing motion, if any, respecting earlier filings (see Dkt. No. 93). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. — 23 — 24 Dated: September 13, 2024. — 25 — 26 A - | \ | wv LIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 28 —