Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD
09-25-2015
CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY STORES, LP, a Virginia limited partnership; and Dell, Inc.; Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART BEST BUY'S SEALING REQUEST
On September 18, 2015, Defendant Best Buy Stores, LP ("Best Buy") submitted for in camera consideration a Request to Seal Documents and to File Redacted Versions of the Subject Documents, a Memorandum of Points & Authorities and two declarations in support thereof, a proposed sealing order, and the 55 pages of documents sought to be sealed. The documents requested to be sealed are identified in a publicly filed Notice of Request to Seal Documents and to File Redacted Versions ("Notice") as follows:
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 1-11 (Portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Best Buy Stores, L.P.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification)[;](Notice 1:22-2:7, ECF No. 132 (bullet points omitted).)
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 12-29 (Portions of the Declaration of Jason Bonfig in Support of Defendant Best Buy Stores,
L.P.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and exhibits thereto);
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 30-33 (Portions of the Declaration of Dennis Tootelian in Support of Best Buy Stores, L.P.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification)[; and]
Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 34-55 (Portions of the Declaration of Conrad M. Davis, CPA/CFF, CFE in Support of Best Buy Stores, L.P.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and exhibits thereto).
Best Buy seeks to file the referenced documents under seal, arguing:
Each of the Subject Documents contains, excerpts, abstracts, and/or reflects information . . . which this Court has already found should properly be sealed in consideration of the Motion for Class Certification (see Dkt. 129). As was previously explained (Dkt. No. 128 and the related filings), the Subject Documents include confidential and/or highly sensitive proprietary business information about Best Buy's internal valuation of laptop computers and brands, processes for selecting a product mix, units sold, and prices paid by customers. The disclosure of this information would be competitively harmful to Best Buy by giving its detractors, competitors and vendors valuable proprietary information about Best Buy's pricing, sales volumes, and internal models of product valuation, which extend beyond the laptop models which are the subject of this litigation.(Id. at 2:8-19.)
Best Buy also requests an order "allow[ing] Best Buy to file redacted versions of the Subject Documents [o]n the public [docket] pursuant to Local Rule 140 for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California." (Id. at 4:1-3.)
DISCUSSION
The September 10, 2015 Order Granting Joint Renewed Sealing Request discussed the two standards that generally govern sealing requests. (See Order 4:25-6:8, ECF No. 129; see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the "good cause" and "compelling reasons" sealing standards).) Therefore, they are not repeated herein.
Best Buy argues the "good cause" standard governs its sealing request. However, the Court need not decide which standard applies since Best Buy has shown that the majority of documents sought to be sealed and the majority of the proposed redactions satisfy the heightened compelling reasons standard, and Best Buy has not provided sufficient justification to support the remainder of its request under the lesser good cause standard.
Best Buy has shown, with the exception of page 40 of its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Best Buy Stores, L.P.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification ("P&As"), "compelling reasons" to seal each of the referenced documents; the documents contain business information the public disclosure of which could be detrimental to Best Buy's competitive interests. Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ("'[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing' often warrant protection under seal." (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978))). In contrast, Best Buy has not shown even good cause to seal page 40 of its P&As. The sentence at issue on that page of the P&As "does not appear to be sufficiently detailed to be likely to result in competitive harm." Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 3:12-cv-3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013).
Further, Best Buy has shown "compelling reasons" to justify its proposed redactions with the exception of the following proposed redactions to its P&As:
Page 5, line 11, starting with "Indeed" through page 5, line 13, ending with "26.)";
Page 38, line 11, starting with "They" through page 38, line 12, ending with "IV.B.4.f.)";
Page 40, line 8, starting with "The" through page 40, line 9, ending with "Ex. E.)";
Page 43, line 13, starting with "fair" through page 43, line 17, ending with "Equations'";
Page 46, line 1, starting with "d." through page 46, line 6, ending with "time.";
Page 46, line 8, starting with "Sarfield's" through page 46, line 10, ending with "Ex. C.)"; and
Page 46, line 23, starting with "The" through page 46, line 24, ending with "Ex. E.)".
Best Buy has not shown justification for these itemized redactions even under the lesser good cause standard. "Because of the strong presumption of access to [court] records, . . . [s]ealing orders . . . must be narrowly tailored." Perry v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, "any interest justifying closure must be specified with particularity, and there must be [a showing] that the [redaction requested] is narrowly confined to protect that interest." Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
For the stated reasons, Best Buy's sealing request is granted in part, and denied in part.
Best Buy shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.
Further, Best Buy shall file the authorized redacted versions of the sealed documents on the public docket within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed. Dated: September 25, 2015
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge