H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. v. Rethceif Enterprises, LLC

[4] 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [7] 8 H.W.J. DESIGNS FOR AGRIBUSINESS, CASE NO. 1:17-CV-0272 AWI SKO INC. AND SAMUEL STRAPPING 9 SYSTEMS, INC., ORDER RE: REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 10 Plaintiffs 11 v. (Doc. 145) 12 RETHCEIF ENTERPRISES, LLC A/K/A RETHCEIF PACKAGING, AND L.P. 13 BROWN COMPANY, INC. D/B/A INTERNATIONAL FIBER 14 PACKAGING, Defendants [15] 16 Defendants have made a second request to file certain documents that support a motion to 17 dismiss under seal. Doc. 145. The opposing party was given e-mail notice of the request; no 18 opposition has been received. 19 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 20 v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096 , 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). A request to seal records in relation to a 21 motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) is evaluated under 22 the “compelling reasons” standard. See Schneider v. Sutter Amador Hosp., 621 F. App'x 480 , 481 23 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 24 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 25 such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the court must 26 conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 27 certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain 28 judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 1 its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, [2] 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006), citations and quotations omitted. “The publication of 3 materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor 4 that would overcome this strong presumption.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150 , 1162 5 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (proper to seal 6 “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”), citations 7 omitted. 8 Defendants argue that their moving brief, two licensing agreements, and a letter contain 9 trade secrets. Specifically, the licensing agreements contain information about royalty structures, 10 payment terms, minimum purchase requirements, and commercial arrangements while the letter 11 includes customer lists and information about competitive strategies. The memorandum brief 12 discusses some of these details. Such kinds of information qualify as trade secrets that merit 13 sealing under the compelling reasons standard. See Elec. Arts, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, [14] 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing document which contained “pricing terms, royalty 15 rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Instituut Voor 16 Landbouw-En Visserijonderzoek, 2018 WL 4961606 , *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018) (sealing 17 document which contained customer lists). [18] 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ second request to seal 20 documents is GRANTED. The following documents may be filed under seal: 21 • Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Samuel Son & Co. (USA) 22 Inc. for Lack of Standing (“Memorandum”); 23 • Exhibit A, which is a copy of the “Supply and License Agreement” executed by 24 Plaintiffs HWJ Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. (“HWJ”) and Samuel Son & Co. (USA) Inc. 25 (“Samuel”) on April 28, 2009; 26 • Exhibit B, which is a copy of the “Addendum to Supply and License Agreement 27 Dated April 28, 2009” executed by HWJ and Samuel on January 24, 2017; and 28 • Exhibit C, a copy of the July 10, 2019 letter from Jaimin H. Shah, attorney for 1 Rethceif, to Michael R. Houston, attorney for Plaintiffs. [2] 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. J 4 | Dated: _ October 24, 2019 ZS Cb ¢ _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE