Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 TEVRA BRANDS LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04312-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 10 BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., SEAL 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 350] [12] 13 Before the court is the parties’ Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of 14 the April 30, 2024 Daubert Order. ECF No. 350; see also ECF No. 351. For the reasons 15 described below, the administrative motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 27 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 1 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 2 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 3 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 4 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 5 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 6 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 7 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 8 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 9 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 10 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Tevra seeks to seal selected portions of the Daubert order. ECF No. 350. Tevra writes 13 that the information should be sealed because “retailers would have insight into confidential 14 retailer communications and Tevra’s business concerns, which could influence their decisions in 15 choosing another brand over Tevra, altering order quantity, or using those concerns in contract 16 negotiations.” Id. at 3. Tevra argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. 17 Bayer also seeks to seal selected portions of the Daubert order. Id. Bayer writes that the 18 information should be sealed because “these portions of the Order contain highly confidential, 19 sensitive business information of Bayer HealthCare LLC relating to its internal business strategies, 20 including competitively sensitive information regarding Bayer’s retailer and licensing agreements 21 and customers.” Id. at 3. Bayer argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. at 4. 22 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal some of the highlighted portions of 23 the document, except as noted in the table below. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV24 05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of 25 [defendant's] products” sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First 26 Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) 27 (noting that courts have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business 1 is narrowly tailored, except as noted in the table below. 2 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: [4] Highlighted portions at 2:2. | DENIED, as this information is already 5 public. See ECF No. 164 at 18:26. 6 Highlighted portions at DENIED, as Tevra has not explained what 12:18-20 makes the content of the communications 7 confidential. See ECF No. 333 at 3 (denying a similar request “as overly broad and because Bayer has not described why information such 9 as the content of emails to distributors is confidential.”). 10 Highlighted portions at GRANTED, as previously sealed for the 12:22. reasons described in ECF No. 321 at 8; ECF I No. 348 at 4. 3s 12 Highlighted portions at DENIED, as this information is already 11:27. public. See ECF No. 302-2 § 129 n.167; 13 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/ a en/news5 14 insights/trending/KyWOrTBG1 VOgJMvPgXu KIA2 = Highlighted portions at 13:5. | GRANTED, as it contains competitively Qa 16 sensitive information regarding the identity of customers with whom Bayer contracts. See 17 ECF No. 351. Z 18 19 Il. ORDER 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the administrative motion is 21 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. All denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any 22 refiled administrative motion SHALL be filed no later than May 14, 2024. [23] 24 || Dated: May 7, 2024 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge