Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04236/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04236-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MATTHEW ENTERPRISE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-04236-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

[Re: ECF 257, 260, 261]

Before the Court are three administrative motions to seal, one from Plaintiff Mathew 

Enterprise, Inc. alone and two filed jointly by Plaintiff and Defendant Chrysler Group LLC. See

Mots., ECF 257, 260, 261. All three sealing motions relate to the parties’ pretrial filings, 

including motions in limine and portions of their expert reports. See id. For the reasons stated

below, the first motion, located at ECF 257, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

The second motion, located at ECF 260, is a duplicate of the third motion, at ECF 261, and 

appears to have been filed in error. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. The third motion, located 

at ECF 261, is GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 271 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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 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). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery 

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents 

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties 

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine 

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference 

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 271 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or 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, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the parties’ motions in limine are only tangentially related to the merits of the 

case, the Court applies the good cause standard. With that standard in mind, the Court rules on the 

instant motions as follows: 

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

257-4 Exhibit E to 

Munkittrick Decl. in 

support of Defendant’s 

motions in limine

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

257-6 Exhibit O to 

Munkittrick Decl. in 

support of Defendant’s 

motions in limine

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

257-8 Exhibit S to 

Munkittrick Decl. in 

support of Defendant’s 

motions in limine

Substantive responses to 

interrogatories SEALED; 

interrogatories and 

objections UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 271 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

257-10 Exhibit T to 

Munkittrick Decl. in 

support of Defendant’s 

motions in limine

Pages

4:13 (address only), 5:24-

6:8, 7:2-8:7, 8:13-9:4, 

10:4-14:25, 17:2-19:25, 

38:1-40:25

SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Only sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

257-12 Exhibit U to 

Munkittrick Decl. in 

support of Defendant’s 

motions in limine

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential

business information.

261-15 Expert report of 

Edward M. Stockton, 

M.S. (“Stockton 

Opening Report”)

Designations highlighted 

in yellow SEALED; 

remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-16 Tab 14 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-17 Tab 15 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-18 Tab 16 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-19 Tab 21 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-20 Tab 22 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-21 Tab 23 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

SEALED Narrowly tailored to confidential 

business information.

261-22 Tab 25 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

Designations highlighted 

in yellow SEALED; 

remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-23 Tabs 26-27 of the 

Stockton Opening 

Report

Designations highlighted 

in yellow SEALED; 

remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-24 Tab 29 of the Stockton 

Opening Report

Designations highlighted 

in yellow SEALED; 

remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-25 Appendix to the 

Stockton Opening 

Report

Designations highlighted 

in yellow or outlined in 

red SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-26 Rebuttal expert report 

of Edward M. 

Stockton, M.S. 

(“Stockton Rebuttal 

Report”)

Designations outlined in 

red SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 271 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

261-27 Tabs 9-25 of the 

Stockton Rebuttal 

Report

Designations outlined in 

red SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-28 Appendix to the 

Stockton Rebuttal 

Report

Designations outlined in 

red SEALED; remainder 

UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

261-26 Expert report of Glenn 

Woroch

Designations highlighted 

in yellow and exhibits 8, 

9, and 11 SEALED; 

remainder UNSEALED.

Sealed portions contain 

confidential business information.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2016

_________________________________

BETH L. FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 271 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 5