Opinion
Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
09-18-2018
MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 91, 94, 98, 103
Pending before the Court are the parties' administrative motions to seal various documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 91, 94, 98, and 103.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a "compelling reasons" standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). "This standard derives from the common law right 'to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). "[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process" and "significant public events." Id. at 1178-79 (quotation omitted). "In general, 'compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id.
The Court must "balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must "establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the "compelling reasons" standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and financial information relating to the operations of Defendant. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of briefs and exhibits as containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling reasons to grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal.
For other documents listed below, the parties have failed to narrowly tailor the redactions to Defendant's confidential business information.
A number of Plaintiffs' proposed redactions indicate contingency upon Chipotle filing a declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. As evidenced in the chart, the Court DENIES the sealing of documents relating to Chipotle CBI for which neither party has provided support. --------
The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:
| Docket NumberPublic/(Sealed) | Document | Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed | Ruling (basis) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entire documentsealed /(91-2) | MSJ, Murrin Decl.Ex. B (pricinginformation) | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed/(91-3) | MSJ, Murrin Decl.Ex. C (pricinginformation) | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed /(91-4) | MSJ, Murrin Decl.Ex. D (pricinginformation) | Entire document | GRANTED |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-4) | Plaintiffs' Motion forClass Certification | 5:18, not including "Ex. 32.";6:10, not including "question";6:11, not including "Ex. 34, atCMG/7184-"; 6:12, notincluding "003795. The reasonChipotle asked this questionwas"; 6:13; 6:16, not including"announcement,' Chipotlesought information"; 6:17, notincluding "Ex. 35; ChipotleDep. at"; 6:18, not including"121:13-17, 126:1-127:21.";6:19; 6:20, not including "Ex. | GRANTED |
| 35 at CMG/7184-001183;Chipotle Dep. at 138:24-139:10."; 6:21; 6:22, notincluding "See Ex. 35 atCMG/7184-001186; ChipotleDep. at 127:17-21."; 6:25, notincluding "Brand Strategy,developed"; 6:26, not including"Chipotle"; 6:28-7:1; 7:4, notincluding "Id. And, whenChipotle asked consumers";7:5; 7:6, not including "Ex. 36at CMG/7184-004141; ChipotleDep. at 107:12-109:23(clarifying the question at";7:10, not including "materiallyaffected consumer interest in itsrestaurants. Specifically,Chipotle reviewed its"; 7:11,not including "Ex. 39 atCMG_7184-009603." 7:12, notincluding "And," and "Id.Indeed, Chipotle's"; 7:13, notincluding "marketing" and "id.at CMG_7184- 009605,"; 7:14,not including "Id. atCMG_7184-009606. And,importantly, as"; 7:15-7:16;7:17, not including "Id. atCMG_7184-009612 (emphasisadded)." | |||
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-6) | Declaration ofLaurence D. King inSupport of Plaintiffs'Motion for ClassCertificaiton | 7:5, not including "documententitled" and "dated July 10,2015, produced by Chipotle";7:10, not including "documententitled" and "dated October 13,2015, produced by"; 7:15, notincluding "document entitled"and "dated January 12, 2016,produced by"; 7:20, notincluding "first of which isfrom", "to", and "Joshua Brau";7:21, not including "dated June22, 2015, with the subject line"and "produced by" | GRANTED |
|---|---|---|---|
| 94-7/(94-8) | Exhibit 4, Excerptsfrom Murrin Depo. | 86:7-87:2; 87:23-88:25; 99:16-104:2; 106:22-108:9; 109:17-22; 110:12-25; 112:9-23; 122:5- | GRANTED |
| 12; 122:17-124:4; 124:16-22;125:1-127:21 | |||
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-10) | Ex. 7, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-12) | Ex. 8, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-14) | Ex. 9, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-16) | Ex. 10, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-18) | Ex. 11, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-20) | Ex. 12, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-22) | Ex. 13, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-24) | Ex. 23, Non-GMOProject Standard | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-26) | Ex. 24, GMO FAQs | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-28) | Ex. 25, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-30) | Ex. 26, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-32) | Ex. 29, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-34) | Ex. 32, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-36) | Ex. 33, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| Entire documentsealed/(94-38) | Ex. 34, Survey | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed/(94-40) | Ex. 35, Survey | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed/(94-42) | Ex. 36, Brand trackingslide deck | Entire document | GRANTED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entire documentsealed/(94-44) | Ex. 37, Brand trackingslide deck | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed/(94-46) | Ex. 39, Email | Entire document | GRANTED |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-50) | Ex. 40, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-52) | Ex. 41 Krosnick Rpt. | p. 40: ¶ 10 lines 6, not including"together, and computed theaverage of them.4"; p.40: ¶ 10lines 7-8; p.40: ¶ 10 line 9, notincluding "The average ($8.15)was then rounded to the nearesthalf; p. 40: n. 4, line 1, notincluding "The product pricingin CMG/7184 - 004261-4386did not include"; p. 40: n. 4,line 2, not including "Thus, thecosts; p. 40: n. 4, line 3, notincluding "on April 11, 2017did not influence the set ofpurchase prices used in thesurvey." | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(94-54) | Ex. 42 Weir Decl. | p. 5: ¶. 10, line 1, not including"Another internal marketingdocument highlights Chipotle'sefforts to"; p. 5: ¶ 10, lines 2-9;p. 5: ¶ 10, line 10, not including"7"; p. 5: ¶ 11, line 1, notincluding "This same documentspecifically highlights"; p. 5: ¶11, lines 2-11; p. 5: ¶ 11, line12, not including "8"; p. 6: ¶ 12,line 1, not including "The samedocument highlights Chipotle'sefforts to"; p. 6: ¶ 12, line 2, notincluding "9"; p. 6: ¶ 13, line 1,not including "A Chipotle brandtracking study performed onbehalf of Chipotle finds that";p. 6: ¶ 13, lines 2-3; p. 6: ¶ 13,line 4, not including "The studyfinds that many respondentsrank"; p. 6: ¶ 13, line 5; p. 6: ¶13, line 6, not including "10"; p.6: ¶ 14, line 1, not including "A | GRANTED |
| follow up Chipotle brandtracking study identifies that";p. 6: ¶ 14, line 2, not including"11"; p. 6: n. 10, 11 p. 12:Table 1: Dollar Sales p. 13:Table 2: Dollar Sales and PricePremium Damages; source p.14: ¶ 42, line 1, not including"Using Defendants' salesrecords, I have determined thatapproximately"; p. 14: Table 3,Number of Units and TotalStatutory Damages | |||
| Entire documentsealed/(98-2) | Ex. A, Opposition toMot. for Class CertEx. U (pricing info) | Entire document | GRANTED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entire documentsealed/(98-3) | Ex. B, Opposition toMot. for Class CertEx. V (marketingplan) | Entire document | GRANTED |
| Entire documentsealed/(98-4) | Ex. C, Opposition toMot. for Class CertEx. BB (Murrin Decl.and pricing exhibits) | Entire document | GRANTED |
| No Public VersionFiled/(103-4) | Opposition toDefendant's Mot. forSummary Judgment | 4:11, not including "2014document entitled"; 4:12, notincluding "SJ"; 4:13, notincluding "Ex. 1 at CMG_7184-006412-13.2 In a February 3,2014 version of a document";4:14-16; 4:17, not including"See SJ Ex."; 4:18, notincluding "2 at CMG_7184-007577-78. Thus,"; 4:19; | GRANTED |
| No Public VersionFiled/(103-6) | King Decl. | 2:8, not including "datedJanuary 3, 2014, produced byChipotle in this litigation";2:13, not including "datedFebruary 3, 2014, produced byChipotle in this litigation";2:17, not including "4. Attachedhereto as Exhibit 3 is a true andcorrect copy of an emailentitled"; 2:18, not including"dated June 3, 2014, fromChipotle Support to JoshuaBrau,"; 2:22, not including "5.Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| a true and correct copy of anemail entitled"; 2:23, notincluding "dated February 3,2014," | |||
| Entire documentsealed/(103-8) | Ex. 1, Chipotle GMOtalking points | Entire document | GRANTED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entire documentsealed/(103-10) | Ex. 2, Chipotle'sstance on GMOs | Entire document | GRANTED |
| No Public VersionFiled/(103-12) | Ex. 3, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
| No Public VersionFiled/(103-14) | Ex. 4, Email | Entire document | DENIED (nosupportingdeclaration) |
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 94 and 103, and GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 91 and 98. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied and/or for which no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/18/2018
/s/_________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge