Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHAD HERRON, individually, on 

behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BEST BUY STORES, LP, a 

Virginia limited partnership,

Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT RENEWED 

SEALING REQUEST 

On September 3, 2015, the parties submitted for in 

camera consideration a Joint Renewed Request to Seal Documents 

and to File Redacted Versions, a Memorandum of Points & 

Authorities and two declarations in support thereof, a proposed 

sealing order, and the 602 pages of documents1 sought to be 

sealed. The documents requested to be sealed are “identified and 

summarized parenthetically” in a publicly filed Notice of Joint 

Renewed Request to Seal Documents and File Redacted Versions 

(“Notice”) as follows: 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 17-373 and 

408-411 (Best Buy Claim Indemnification Forms 

and Correspondence with Dell regarding Best 

Buy Claim Indemnification Form); 

 

1

 The 602 pages include slip sheets used to identify the documents by 

exhibit number. 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 7
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 

2 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 374-407 

(Portions of the Deposition Testimony of Best 

Buy employee Jason Bonfig); 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 453-470 

(Internal Best Buy employee email 

communications regarding laptop advertising 

and sales); 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 412-422 

(Portions of the Deposition Testimony of Best 

Buy employee Rick Sorenson); 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 423-450 

(Best Buy – Laptop Design Positioning / 

Naming/ Conjoint Topline Report); 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 451-452 

(Notes of internal Best Buy “Computer 

Council” Meeting); 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 471-476 

(List of Laptop Models Sold at Best Buy, 

including Units Sold and Beginning Sale 

Dates); . . . 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 477-577 

(Best Buy Laptop Value Equations)[;] . . . 

[P]ortions of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities in Support of the 

Motion for Class Certification that reflect 

information contained in the Subject 

Documents, (Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 

1-17)[;] 

[T]he Report of William C. Sarsfield 

(included in this Joint Renewed Request as 

Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 578-602)[;] 

and 

[P]ortions of the Declaration of Gene J. 

Stonebarger in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Class Certification, which reference the 

Subject Documents. 

(Notice 1:25-2:25, ECF No. 128.) 

The parties seek to file the referenced documents under 

seal, arguing: 

The Subject Documents reflect confidential 

and/or highly sensitive proprietary business 

information about [Defendant] Best Buy’s 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 7
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 

3 

internal valuation of laptop computers and 

brands, processes for selecting a product 

mix, vendor agreements, units sold, point of 

sale system, and internal discussions and 

investigations regarding laptop battery life 

advertisements and complaints[, t]he 

disclosure of [which] would be competitively 

harmful to Best Buy by giving its detractors, 

competitors and vendors valuable proprietary 

information about Best Buy’s point of sale 

system, internal processes for investigating 

and responding to complaints, sales volumes, 

vendor agreements, and internal models of 

product valuation, which extend beyond the 

laptop models which are the subject of this 

litigation. 

(Id. at 3:17-26.) The parties provide additional arguments on 

pages three to six of the Notice specific to the referenced 

groupings of documents. For example, concerning Defendant’s 

laptop “Value Equations (Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 477-

577)[,]” the parties contend: 

these documents contain and reflect Best 

Buy’s internal valuation of laptop computers 

and brands based upon the analysis of 

millions of transactions that are otherwise 

unavailable to other retailers and 

manufacturers. These reveal Best Buy’s 

processes for selecting a product mix to 

offer to its customers. They disclose the 

number of computers within the product mix 

Best Buy intends to buy which in turn 

indirectly discloses the interests and mix of 

Best Buy’s customer base. Disclosure of the 

Value Equations to Best Buy’s competitors or 

the vendors from whom they buy laptops would 

be competitively harmful because they 

disclose the way Best Buy values and prices 

the laptops it purchases from vendors and 

sells to customers. On the vendor side, it 

would be competitively harmful because they 

disclose the relative strength of one brand 

versus another, information that has not been 

disclosed to those manufacturers. On the 

competitor side, it would be competitively 

harmful because they disclose the way that 

Best Buy has historically created and priced 

an assortment of laptops, and the margins 

Best Buy realizes on different products. Any 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 7
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 

4 

of this information could be used by 

competitors to better compete with Best Buy 

by providing a detailed explanation of the 

way the company prices products that could 

then be used to undercut Best Buy’s pricing, 

and would allow a competitor to focus on 

certain product segments and segments of the 

customer base. 

Among other things, the Value Equations rely 

upon and include summarized transaction level 

data of the type included in the List of 

Laptop Models Sold at Best Buy, including 

Units Sold and Beginning Sale Dates 

(Paginated Documents to Seal, pp. 471-476). 

This point-of-sale sales data is not publicly 

disclosed but its disclosure would create a 

competitive disadvantage because it would 

disclose to competitors a path to creating a 

successful product mix while Best Buy was 

required to expend great amounts of time and 

money to develop that mix itself. With this 

information, a competitor or an [Original 

Equipment Manufacturer] could create their 

own Value Equation to better compete with 

Best Buy. This summarized transaction level 

point-of-sale data is also confidential 

business information in and of itself that 

would be valuable to competitors and vendors 

for the same reasons the Value Equations are. 

(Id. at 3:27-5:3.) 

The parties also request an order “allow[ing] Plaintiff 

to file redacted versions of [Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points 

and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification], 

the Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in Support [thereof], and 

the Report of William C. Sarsfield [o]n the public [docket] 

pursuant to Local Rule 140.” (Id. at 7:4-8.) 

DISCUSSION 

“Two standards generally govern [requests] to seal 

documents like the one at issue here.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records 

attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 7
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 

5 

records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City 

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) “[T]he 

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or 

summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 

public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant 

public events.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley 

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 

1986)). “Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 

attached to a dispositive motion or one that is presented at 

trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” 

Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 

2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “‘[S]ources of 

business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 

standing’ often warrant protection under seal.” Williams, 290 

F.R.D. at 604-05 (alteration in original) (quoting Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 598). 

In contrast, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has determined that 

the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively 

lower than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. 

Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a 

non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ to 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 7
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 

6 

justify sealing.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Pintos, 605 

F.3d at 678). Even under the lesser “good cause” standard, “‘the 

party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 

prejudice or harm will result’ if the request to seal is denied.” 

Ross v. Bar None Enters., No. 2:13-cv-00234-KJM-KJN, 2014 WL 

2700901, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (quoting Phillips ex 

rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 

(9th Cir. 2002)). 

“The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether or 

not, or under what circumstances, a motion for class 

certification is a dispositive motion for purposes of deciding 

what standard applies on sealing motions, and . . . [district] 

courts in [the Ninth Circuit] have reached different 

conclusions.” Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-CV-02131-LHK, 

2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (internal 

quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). The parties 

contend the good cause standard applies to their joint sealing 

request, although they argue “Best Buy’s showing of likely 

competitive harm . . . meets” the higher compelling reasons 

standard. (Mem. P.&A. ISO Joint Renewed Req. 3:6-19.) 

The Court need not decide which standard applies to the 

instant request since the parties have shown “compelling reasons” 

to seal the referenced documents. Here, each of the documents the 

parties seek to file under seal comprises business information 

the public disclosure of which could be detrimental to Best Buy’s 

competitive interests. Therefore, the parties’ sealing request is 

GRANTED. The parties shall provide to the Clerk an electronic 

copy of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 7
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 

7 

Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this 

order is filed. 

Further, the parties’ request to file redacted versions 

of certain documents on the public docket is GRANTED. Plaintiff 

is authorized to file redacted versions of the referenced 

documents on the public docket within seven (7) days from the 

date this order is filed. 

Dated: September 10, 2015 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 129 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 7