Columbia Insurance Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 COLUMBIA INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 19-cv-04683-TSH 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY Re: Dkt. Nos. 140, 147, 157, 183 INC., [11] Defendant. [12] 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiffs Columbia Insurance Co. and MiTek Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for 15 patent infringement against Defendant Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. (“Simpson”). ECF No. 16 61 (First Amended Complaint). Simpson filed a counterclaim for patent invalidity against 17 Plaintiffs. ECF No. 64. Pending before the Court are two administrative motions to file under 18 seal brought by Plaintiffs (ECF Nos. 140, 157) and two administrative motions to file under seal 19 brought by Simpson (ECF Nos. 147, 183). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 20 Plaintiffs’ first Motion, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ second Motion, 21 GRANTS Simpson’s first Motion, and GRANTS Simpson’s second Motion.1 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 26 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when [27] 1 considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the 2 starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that 3 are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 4 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the 5 presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 6 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 7 1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil 8 Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” 9 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. 10 Here, the documents at issue in Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motions (ECF Nos. 140, 157) 11 were filed by Plaintiffs in connection with their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141) 12 and their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 157-2). Simpson’s 13 second Administrative Motion was filed in connection with its Reply in support of its Motion for 14 Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 183, 184. Motions for summary judgment, along with their 15 attached documents, are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case. See Ctr. for Auto 16 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (“while discovery-related motions are often unrelated to the merits of a 17 case, the same cannot be said for materials attached to a summary judgment motion because 18 summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and serves as a substitute for trial”) (cleaned 19 up); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812 , at *2 20 (N.D. Cal. June 01, 2020) (“Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain 21 to summary judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these 22 documents.”). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to Plaintiffs’ administrative 23 motions and to Simpson’s second administrative motion. 24 The documents at issue in Simpson’s first Administrative Motion (ECF No. 147) were 25 filed by Simpson in connection with its Daubert Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 148). Where, as 26 here, a Daubert motion concerns opinions on “invalidity of the patents at issue in the case . . . and 27 efforts to strike or exclude expert opinions,” the compelling reasons standard applies. VLSI Tech. 1 see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1100 (treating Daubert motion as dispositive because it 2 “pertain[ed] to central issues bearing on defendant's summary judgment motion,” and applying 3 compelling reasons standard to the motion). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies 4 to Simpson’s first administrative motion. 5 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis, 2020 WL 6 2838812, at *1. Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document 7 because that document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating 8 Party”), the Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 9 Material Should Be Sealed. CIV. L.R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or 10 portions thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion's filing, the 11 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the 12 applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1), 13 (f). That statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; 14 (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to 15 sealing is not sufficient. Id. at 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in 16 the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id. 17 III. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL 18 A. ECF No. 140 19 On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 20 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their 21 Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s MSJ”). ECF Nos. 141, 140. Plaintiffs move to file 22 portions of one document under seal on the basis that it was designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 23 by Simpson: Pl.’s MSJ, Ex. J, at 33:6–36:24, 44:20–45:8 (ECF No. 140-2). ECF No. 140. 24 On May 12, 2025, Simpson responded to Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion requesting 25 sealing of the portions of Exhibit J identified by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 146. In support of its 26 request, Simpson submits a declaration from Joseph V. Mauch setting forth the bases for sealing 27 the document. See Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative 1 Simpson’s Vice President, Sam Hensen—the document discusses Simpson’s confidential business 2 information as it contains non-public information regarding Simpson’s intellectual property and 3 confidential sales data regarding Simpson’s products. Id. at ¶¶ 4–6. 4 The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Simpson’s requests 5 are narrowly tailored to the confidential business document. The Court agrees that there are 6 compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business 7 document. See Regis Metro Associates, Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-02309-DMR, 2022 WL 8 267443, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (granting motion to seal because “[a]ll of the documents 9 contain sensitive business information or may be subject to confidentiality agreements”); In re 10 Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1767158 , at *2 11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (noting that under the compelling reasons standard, courts have upheld 12 the sealing of “trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product 13 specific financial information, customer information, internal reports, and other such materials that 14 would harm a party’s competitive standing”). 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion and ORDERS 16 that ECF No. 140-2 remain under seal. As the redacted version of Exhibit J has already been filed 17 in the public record (ECF No. 140-3), no further action is required. 18 B. ECF No. 157 19 On May 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a combined Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 20 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed and an Administrative Motion to Seal, pursuant to Civil 21 Local Rule 79-5, in connection with their Opposition to Simpson’s Motion for Summary 22 Judgment (“Pl.’s Oppo.”). ECF Nos. 157-2, 157, 158 (continuation of Motion). 23 1. Documents Designated By Simpson 24 Plaintiffs move to file 31 documents under seal on the basis that they were designated as 25 “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Simpson: 26 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 16 (ECF No. 157-4) 27 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 25 (ECF No. 157-6) 1 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 27 (ECF No. 157-8) 2 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 28 (ECF No. 157-9) 3 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 29 (ECF No. 157-10) 4 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 30 (ECF No. 157-11) 5 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 31 (ECF No. 157-12) 6 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 32 (ECF No. 157-13) 7 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 33 (ECF No. 157-14) 8 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 34 (ECF No. 157-15) 9 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 35 (ECF No. 157-16) 10 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 36 (ECF No. 157-17) 11 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 37 (ECF No. 157-18) 12 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 39 (ECF No. 157-20) 13 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 40 (ECF No. 157-21) 14 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 41 (ECF No. 157-22) 15 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 42 (ECF No. 157-23) 16 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 43 (ECF No. 157-24) 17 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 45 (ECF No. 157-26) 18 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 46 (ECF No. 157-27) 19 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 50 (ECF No. 157-28) 20 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 51 (ECF No. 156-48)2 21 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 52 (ECF No. 157-29) 22 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 53 (ECF No. 157-30) 23 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 54 (ECF No. 158-1) 24 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 55 (ECF No. 158-2) 25 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 56 (ECF No. 158-3) 26 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 57 (ECF No. 158-4) [27] 1 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 67 (ECF No. 158-5) 2 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 68 (ECF No. 158-6) 3 ECF No. 157. 4 On June 5, 2025, Simpson responded to Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion 5 requesting sealing of nine documents: Pl.’s Oppo., Exs. 25, 26, 28, 42, 43, 45, 53, 54, 55. ECF 6 No. 175. Simpson also requests that certain portions of one document be sealed: Pl.’s Oppo., 7 Ex.16, at pages 32–35, 45, 57, 70–74, 146–154, 180–190. Id. In support of its request, Simpson 8 submits a declaration from Lindsay van Keulen setting forth the bases for sealing each document. 9 See Declaration of Lindsay van Keulen in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion (ECF No. 10 175). 11 All of Simpson’s sealing requests relate to exhibits that discuss Simpson’s confidential 12 business information, including Simpson’s product development plans and internal sales reports. 13 ECF No. 175. Simpson argues that disclosure of the information in each document at issue would 14 result in competitive harm to Simpson. Id. at ¶ 15. Exhibit 16 discloses excerpts from the 15 deposition of Simpson’s Vice President, Sam Hensen—this document contains non-public 16 information about Simpson’s intellectual property and sales strength of Simpson’s products. Id. at 17 ¶ 4. Exhibit 25 is Dr. Serwin’s expert report that contains confidential sales data of Simpson and 18 MiTek products. Id. at ¶ 5. Exhibits 26, 28, and 42 are internal Simpson emails that contain 19 “confidential discussions regarding confidential sales data reflecting the relative strength of certain 20 Simpson products.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–8. Exhibits 43 and 45 are an internal Simpson email and 21 document that contain “confidential information regarding Simpson’s product development, 22 including intellectual property relating to non-public ideas and strategy” for Simpson’s products. 23 Id. at ¶¶ 9–10. Exhibits 53 and 54 are an internal Simpson email and meeting minutes that contain 24 confidential product development information. Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. Exhibit 55 is an internal Simpson 25 email that contains confidential product development information. Id. at ¶ 13. 26 The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed. Simpson’s request to seal Dr. 27 Serwin’s expert report (ECF No. 157-6) in its entirety is overbroad. See Allen v. Conagra Foods, 1 motions to seal without prejudice and noting “requests to seal entire pages of deposition testimony 2 and expert reports are overbroad”). Simpson does not explain why there are no suitable 3 alternatives to sealing the entire expert report. Simpson’s request reaches far beyond sealable 4 information, extending to recitations of the expert’s qualifications and to descriptions of 5 documents in the public record, such as information contained in Plaintiffs’ publicly filed 6 complaint. Although the van Keulen Declaration establishes that the expert report contains some 7 sealable information, Simpson fails to establish that the expert report in its entirety is privileged or 8 protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law, as required under 9 Local Rule 79-5(a). 10 The Court finds Simpson’s other requests are narrowly tailored to the confidential business 11 documents. The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as 12 they relate to the confidential business documents. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance 13 Litigation, 2019 WL 1767158 , at *2. 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF 15 Nos. 157-7, 157-9, 157-23, 157-24, 157-26, 157-30, 158-1, and 158-2. With respect to Exhibit 16, 16 the Court ORDERS ECF No. 157-4 to remain sealed and ORDERS Simpson to file a redacted 17 version of Exhibit 16 in the public record within four days with pages 32–35, 45, 57, 70–74, 146– 18 154, 180–190 redacted. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to seal ECF No. 19 157-6. Within four days, Simpson may propose narrowly tailored redactions to Serwin’s report. 20 If Simpson fails to do so, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied with respect to ECF No. 157-6. 21 In its response to Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion, Simpson states that it does not 22 request sealing of: Pl.’s Oppo., Exs. 27, 29–37, 39–41, 46, 50–52, 56–57, 67, 68. ECF No. 175. 23 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF Nos. 15724 8, 157-10–157-18, 157-20–157-22, 157-27, 157-28, 157-29, and 158-3–158-6, and Plaintiffs are 25 hereby DIRECTED to file these Exhibits in the public record no sooner than three days and no 26 later than seven days from the date of this order. [27] 1 2. Documents Designated By Plaintiffs 2 In this same Motion, Plaintiffs request that three documents in connection with its 3 Opposition be filed under seal: 4 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 24 (ECF No. 157-5) 5 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 38 (ECF No. 157-19) 6 • Pl.’s Oppo., Ex. 44 (ECF No. 157-25) 7 ECF No. 157. Plaintiffs also move to file certain portions of one document under seal: Pl.’s 8 Oppo., Ex. 1, at ¶¶ 340–42, 351, 353, 359, 361, 363, 367, 372, 376, 377, 380, 389, 390, 391–92, 9 403, 405, 407, 409–10 (ECF No. 158-7). Id. In support of their request, Plaintiffs submit a 10 declaration from Julie Scheipeter setting forth the bases for sealing each document designated by 11 Plaintiffs. See Declaration of Julie Scheipeter in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion 12 (ECF No. 157-1). Plaintiffs filed redacted versions of their Opposition (ECF No. 156) and 13 Controverting Statement of Facts (ECF No. 156-1) on the public docket because those documents 14 identify information which is taken from exhibits filed under seal.3 Id. 15 All of Plaintiffs’ sealing requests relate to briefs and exhibits that discuss confidential 16 business information. ECF No. 157-1. Plaintiffs argue that disclosure of the information in each 17 document at issue would result in competitive harm to Plaintiffs. Id. Exhibit 1 is Dr. Serrette’s 18 Expert Report that contains “highly confidential information on sales information, product 19 development, and marketing data not available to the public.” Id. at ¶ 35. Exhibit 24 relates to the 20 deposition of MiTek’s corporate representative, Mike Nelson, and contains testimony that 21 “describes confidential sales, profit, and other highly sensitive business information not available 22 to the public.” Id. at ¶ 36. Exhibit 38 is a MiTek sales report that contains “highly confidential, 23 proprietary business information, including sales data, not available to the public.” Id. at ¶ 37. 24 Exhibit 44 is an email chain that contains “highly confidential, proprietary business and technical 25 information, including product design, development, and sales, not available to the public.” Id. at [27] 3 While Plaintiffs filed unredacted versions of these documents, the documents do not contain 1 ¶ 38. 2 The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Plaintiffs’ requests 3 are narrowly tailored to the confidential business documents. The Court agrees that there are 4 compelling reasons to seal the requested portions as they relate to the confidential business 5 documents. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2019 WL 1767158 , at *2. 6 However, for Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Controverting Statement of Facts, Plaintiffs did not 7 comply with Local Rule 79-5 as they did not identify which portions of these documents sealing is 8 sought. See CIV. L.R. 79-5(e)(2) (instructing that unredacted briefs “must highlight the portions 9 for which sealing is sought”). Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs’ requests 10 for sealing these documents are appropriate. 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion to seal ECF 12 Nos. 157-5, 157-19, 157-25 and 158-7. As the redacted version of Serrette’s report has already 13 been filed in the public record (ECF No. 156-2), no further action is needed with respect to that 14 Exhibit. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to seal ECF Nos. 157-2 and 15 157-3. For those items, Plaintiffs shall comply with Local Rule 79-5(e)(2) within four days. If 16 Plaintiffs fail to do so, their motion will be denied with respect to ECF Nos. 157-2 and 157-3. 17 IV. SIMPSON’S MOTIONS TO SEAL 18 A. ECF No. 147 19 On May 14, 2025, Simpson filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 20 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its 21 Daubert Motion to Exclude. ECF Nos. 147, 148. Simpson moves to file one document under seal 22 on the basis that it was designated as “Confidential -Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Plaintiffs or refers 23 to such designated material: Declaration of Joseph V. Mauch in Support of Simpson’s Daubert 24 Motion to Exclude, Ex. D (Expert Report of Dr. Reynaud Serrette On Validity) (ECF No. 147-2). 25 ECF No. 147. 26 Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Plaintiffs had seven days to file a statement or 27 declaration justifying the sealing. Plaintiffs did not do so. Ordinarily, this would be cause to deny 1 have made clear that they do want certain portions of Serrette’s report to be sealed, and the Court 2 has granted that request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Simpson’s first Administrative 3 Motion to seal ECF No. 147-2. As the redacted version of Serrette’s report is already in the public 4 record, no further action is required. 5 B. ECF No. 183 6 On June 26, 2025, Simpson filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 7 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its Reply 8 in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 183, 184. Simpson moves to file one 9 document under seal on the basis that it contains material from documents that Plaintiffs requested 10 be sealed in their Administrative Motion at ECF No. 157 and because it contains material that 11 Simpson has designated as confidential: Simpson’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Additional Material 12 Facts (“Reply Separate Statement”) (ECF No. 183-2).4 ECF No. 183. In support of its request, 13 Simpson submits a declaration from Lindsay van Keulen setting forth the bases for sealing 14 portions of the Reply Separate Statement that contain materials from documents designated by 15 Simpson. See Declaration of Lindsay van Keulen in Support of Simpson’s Administrative Motion 16 (ECF No. 183-1). The declaration is persuasive. 17 The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal portions of the Reply Separate 18 Statement that contain material from documents designated by Plaintiffs and Simpson that the 19 Court finds are appropriate for sealing, as discussed above. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 20 Simpson’s second Administrative Motion. As the redacted version of the Reply Separate 21 Statement is already in the public record (ECF No. 186), no further action is needed. 22 V. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ first Administrative Motion is GRANTED, 24 Plaintiffs’ second Administrative Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, 25 Simpson’s first Administrative Motion is GRANTED, and Simpson’s second Administrative 26 Motion is GRANTED. [27] 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. [2] 3 Dated: July 10, 2025 4 f/LS \ - I. f THOMAS S. HIXSON 5 United States Magistrate Judge [41] © [17] Z 18