Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04236/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04236-19/pdf.json

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

---

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. 13-cv-04236-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 201-214]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to file under seal materials filed in support of 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motions for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Certain 

Opinions of Edward M. Stockton. Mot., ECF 201.

1

For the reasons stated below, the motion is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Two standards govern motions to seal portions of documents: a 

“compelling reasons” standard, which applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, 

which applies to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1179. Motions that are technically nondispositive 

may still require the party to meet the “compelling reasons” standard when the motion is more 

than tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 

809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 

 

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff also filed this motion at ECF 202-214, attaching a different set of 

exhibits that the motion seeks to file under seal to each docket entry. Notwithstanding this 

approach to filing, the Court considers the docket entries in combination as one motion. 

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 231 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Compelling reasons generally exist when the “‘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. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)), or where court files may serve “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Nixon, 435 U.S at 598-99. The 

compelling reasons standard is invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1136). 

In this district, parties seeking to seal judicial records must follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, 

which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party seeking to file a document, or portions thereof, 

under seal must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Id. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal a document designated 

confidential by another party, the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed 

on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). For any request that is denied because the party designating 

a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to 

seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser-redacted) documents in the public 

record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of the sealing order.

II. DISCUSSION

Because at least the Motion for Summary Judgment is more than tangentially related to the 

merits of this case, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. Plaintiff seeks to file the 

following under seal because they contain sensitive and detailed information regarding pricing and 

incentives for various dealerships: Exhibits 29 and 43, as well as portions of Exhibits 2, 4, 11, and 

30 to the Norman Declaration. See Baker Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 6, ECF 201-1. Plaintiff additionally seeks 

to seal the following because they contain information designated confidential by Defendant: 

Exhibits 1, 3, 5-10, 12-28, and 31-42 to the Norman Declaration.

Pursuant to Rule 79-5, Defendant filed a declaration in support of sealing those exhibits. 

Munkittrick Decl., ECF 215. Defendant explains that Exhibits 8 (at pages 143-44), 38, and 39 

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 231 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 3
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

refer to and discuss sensitive and detailed financial and sales information, including earnings, 

expenses, profits, and sales performance, of Chrysler dealerships in the Bay Area. Id. ¶ 3. In 

addition, Plaintiff declares that Exhibit 15 includes operational and financial details of certain of 

Chrysler’s incentive programs that, if disclosed, could be used to put Chrysler and its dealers at an 

unfair competitive advantage. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant offers no reasons to support the sealing of 

Exhibits 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, 15-28, 31-37 or 40-42 (“Unsupported Exhibits”). See id. 

With the exception of the requests to seal the Unsupported Exhibits, the Court finds that 

the requests are narrowly tailored, supported by the requisite declarations, and meet the 

compelling reasons standard. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to 

seal all but the Unsupported Exhibits. The Court DENIES without prejudice the request to seal the 

Unsupported Exhibits. Defendant may submit additional declarations in support of the sealing 

motion by no later than June 6, 2016, at which point the Court will reconsider the motion. If no 

additional declaration is submitted, Defendant must file the Unsupported Exhibits in unredacted 

form.

Dated: June 2, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04236-BLF Document 231 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 3