Federal Trade Commission v. Directv, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01129

*** PLEASE DISREGARD. PLEASE SEE {{216}} FOR CORRECTED PDF *** ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART {{177}} {{184}} {{187}} {{188}} {{191}} {{194}} {{195}} {{197}} Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (hsglc3S, COURT STAFF) Modified on 11/28/2016

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART 9 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO DIRECTV, INC., et al., SEAL 10 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 177, 184, 187-88, 191, 194-95, 11 197 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV") have both 14 filed various administrative motions (including a supplemental administrative motion) seeking to 15 seal portions of the briefs and exhibits relating to the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment. 16 See Dkt. Nos. 177, 184, 187-88, 191, 194-95, 197. The FTC has opposed several of these 17 administrative motions. See Dkt. Nos. 190, 193, 199. Pursuant to the Court's order, Dkt. No. 208, 18 the parties filed a jointly prepared chart listing all portions of documents sought to be sealed, the 19 asserted grounds for sealing, and if applicable, the asserted grounds for opposition, Dkt. No. 212- 20 1. The parties represented that the jointly prepared chart sets forth the current status of all 21 requested redactions. Dkt. No. 212. Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, 22 the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions to seal. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal 25 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). "This standard 26 derives from the common law right 'to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 27 judicial records and documents.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 28 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). "[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." 1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 2 strong presumption, the moving party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 3 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 4 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Id. at 1178-79 5 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). "In general, compelling reasons 6 sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 7 when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 8 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 9 trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must 10 "balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 11 records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 12 records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its Northern District of California United States District Court 13 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Id. (citations, brackets, and internal 14 quotation marks omitted). 15 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the "compelling reasons" standard. The party seeking 16 to file under seal must "establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 17 protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request 18 must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material. . . ." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 19 Finally, records attached to motions that are only "tangentially related to the merits of a 20 case" are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 21 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 22 meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 23 1097. The "good cause" standard requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or 24 harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 25 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see 26 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 27 II. DISCUSSION 28 Here, the Court applies the "compelling reasons" standard because the documents at issue 2 1 have more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 2 1101. The Court finds that the requested redactions in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1 3 all satisfy the "compelling reasons" standard, on the grounds listed in column 6 ("Asserted 4 Grounds for Sealing")—except for those listed in the chart below. 5 Dkt. No. Jt. Chart Pg. Portions of Document for Which Document (Unredacted No. (Dkt. No. 6 Sealing is DENIED Version) 212-1) Ortiz Decl., Ex. A (Bentley Dep.) 187-15 2 136:13-22 7 Ortiz Decl., Ex. B (Chen Dep.) 187-16 3 69:15-20 Ortiz Decl., Ex. C (Filipiak Dep.) 187-17 4 81:6-7 8 Ortiz Decl., Ex. D (Friedman 187-18 5 67:11-68:9, 69:11-16 Dep.) 86:8-24, 100:17-104:3, 183:14-184:6 9 Ortiz Decl., Ex. E (Hause Dep.) 187-19 5 41:2-9 Ortiz Decl., Ex. F (Leever Dep.) 187-20 7 143:1-144:15, 189:1-191:14 10 Ortiz Decl., Ex. G (Patel Dep.) 187-21 8 205:1-18, 206:6-14 Ortiz Decl., Ex. H (Poling-Hiraldo 187-22 8 57:1-60-11, 83:2-84:25 11 Dep.) Ortiz Decl., Ex. P (Dep. Ex. 319) 177-34 11 Entirety 12 Ortiz Decl., Ex. T (Dep. Ex. 706) 177-40 11 Entirety Northern District of California United States District Court Ortiz Decl., Ex. U (Dep. Ex. 720) 177-42 11 Entirety 13 FTC's Motion for Partial 177-4, 187-14 11-12 1:23-25, 13:7-18 Summary Judgment 14 Sandrock Decl., Ex. E (Friedman 188-14, 197- 13 253:9-254:15 Dep.) 20 15 Sandrock Decl., Ex. F (Stinson 188-16 13-14 193:1-195:4, 198:20-200:25, 205:1- Dep.) 206:5, 206:16-209:18, 210:2-211:22, 16 212:8-9, 212:20-25. Friedman Decl. (Oct. 6, 2015) 188-27 15 2:6-12, 2:25-3:13 17 DIRECTV's Opposition to FTC's 188-4 15 17:16-18 Motion for Partial Summary 18 Judgment Ortiz II Decl., Ex. MM (Hause 197-15 17 117:3 19 Dep.) Ortiz II Decl., Ex. QQ (May 13, 195-11 18 Entirety 20 2010 CID Letter) Ortiz II Decl., Ex. RR (June 9, 195-13 18 Entirety 21 2010 CID Letter) Ortiz II Decl., Ex. SS (July 2, 195-15 18 1, 4-8 (from subsection "8." onward) 22 2010 CID Letter) Ortiz II Decl., Ex. UU (April 6, 195-19 18 1 23 2011 CID Letter) FTC's Reply in Support of Motion 197-12 19 7:4-7 24 for Partial Summary Judgment 25 Sealing is inappropriate for the portions of the documents listed above, but is appropriate 26 for all other portions of documents listed in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1. 27 III. CONCLUSION 28 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motions to seal with respect to the 3 1 portions of documents listed in the chart above. The Court GRANTS the motions to seal with 2 respect to all the other portions of documents listed in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1. 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), the parties must, within 7 days, file revised redacted 4 versions of the documents listed in the chart above (except for the five documents for which the 5 motions to seal were denied as to the entire document). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: 8 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4