Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08274/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08274-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Gustafson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, et 

al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08274-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are four motions to seal: (1) a Joint Motion and 

Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification and Supporting Evidence (Doc. 77); (2) Defendants’ Motion to File under 

Seal: (A) Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 

and Memorandum in Support, and Portions of Certain Exhibits Thereto, and (B) Portions 

of Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and 

Memorandum in Support (Doc. 86); (3) a Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in 

Support of Sealing Portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 93); and (4) a Joint Motion 

and Memorandum of Law in Support of Sealing (A) Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification, and (B) Certain Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 106). 

The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Legal Standard 

 It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 20
- 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 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access extends to all judicial records except those that 

have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, “the common-law right of inspection has 

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” do not “serve as . . . sources 

of business information that might harm the litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 598. 

 “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 

(quotation omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 

overcoming this presumption by either meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the 

record is a dispositive pleading, or the “good cause” standard if the record is a nondispositive pleading. Id. at 1180.1

 

1

 In a recent opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit shifted from the dispositive/nondispositive analysis to a review of the relationship between the underlying motion and the 

merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp, LLC, No. 15-55084, 2016 

WL 142440, at *6 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016) (“Auto Safety”). Specifically, Auto Safety held 

that public access to records attached to a motion that is “more than tangentially related 

to the merits of a case” will be reviewed under the “compelling interest” standard, while 

documents attached to a motion that does not have a “tangential” relationship to the 

merits of a case may be sealed if “good cause” is shown. Id. However, because Auto 

Safety was only a panel decision and not en banc, prior Ninth Circuit precedent 

centralizing the inquiry on whether the record is dispositive or non-dispositive was not 

overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Circuit 

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta stated as much in her Dissent: 

According to the majority, the district court here erred because it “relied on 

language in our cases which provides that when a party is attempting to 

keep records attached to a ‘non-dispositive’ motion under seal, it need only 

show ‘good cause.’” Maj. op. at 5. This comes as a surprise, because the 

“language in our cases” constitutes binding precedent. But no matter, the 

majority invents a new rule, namely that a party cannot keep records under 

seal if they are attached to any motion that is “more than tangentially 

related to the merits of a case,” Maj. op. at 17, unless the party can meet the 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 20
- 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 

 What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. The Court must “balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179. If the Court decides to seal certain judicial records after considering 

these interests, “it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. “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 . . . release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting 

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

 A “trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of 

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 

298 F. App’x 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, 

cmt. B (1939)). Notably, as this Court has observed in the past, “because confidentiality 

alone does not transform business information into a trade secret, a party alleging trade 

secret protection as a basis for sealing court records must show that the business 

information is in fact a trade secret.” PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC, 2014 WL 

4722326, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quotation omitted). 

 The less-stringent “good cause” standard requires 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) (quotation 

omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples of articulated reasoning” is not enough. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 

 

“stringent standard” of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy, 

Maj. op. at 8. Because this decision overrules circuit precedent and vitiates 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I strongly dissent. 

Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *9. Whether Auto Safety will be reheard by the Ninth 

Circuit en banc is unknown as of the date of this Order. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 20
- 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 

Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

 Here, the pending motions to seal concern documents associated with Plaintiff’s 

motion for class certification. Although the Ninth Circuit has not spoken on the issue of 

whether a motion for class certification is a dispositive or non-dispositive pleading, this 

Court has applied the “good cause” standard to the sealing of documents filed with a 

motion for conditional certification, see Hart v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5965637, at 

*8–9 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2013), and other courts in this circuit have applied the “good 

cause” standard to documents concomitant to class certification motions, see In re HighTech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 5486230 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013); In re NCAA 

Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2013 WL 1997252 (N.D. Cal. May 

13, 2013; Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2010 WL 2107434 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2010). 

As noted, however, a panel of the Ninth Circuit recently muddied the waters regarding 

the standards applicable to a motion to seal. On one hand, if the Court were to follow the 

Auto Safety test, a motion for class certification likely involves issues that are “more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the case,” thereby invoking the “compelling reasons” 

standard. See Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting 

that courts must “consider evidence which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 [at the 

class certification stage] even [if] the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of 

the case”). On the other hand, if the Court were to apply the traditional dispositive/nondispositive approach, the “good cause” standard would likely apply. See, e.g., In re HighTech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 n.1. Nonetheless, the Court finds 

that deciding which standard applies in this case is inconsequential because the same 

records would be sealed under either standard. 

II. Analysis 

 Goodman seeks to seal three categories of information: (1) warranty claim rate 

information for Goodman evaporator coils, (2) the design and manufacturing processes 

used by Goodman to produce evaporator coils, and (3) pricing details related to payments 

made by Goodman for replacements of evaporator coils. See (Docs. 77, 86, 93, 106). The 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 20
- 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 

Court will analyze each in turn. 

 A. Warranty Claim Rate for Goodman Evaporator Coils 

 A residential air conditioner includes three integrated components: (1) an 

evaporator coil, (2) a condenser coil, and (3) a compressor. Goodman argues that all 

documents containing the warranty claim rate and related information for its evaporator 

coil product should be sealed because disclosing such data “would unfairly equip 

competitors with information to attempt to dissuade distributors and dealers from selling 

Goodman products.” (Doc. 77 at 2). According to Goodman, publicizing this information 

would “unfairly disadvantage Goodman and allow a competitor to attempt to use that 

information to the competitor’s commercial advantage.” (Id.) Goodman highlights the 

fact that it keeps its warranty claim rate data strictly confidential and limits access only to 

those people who “need to know.” (Id.) Goodman also comments that two other district 

courts permitted Goodman to file its warranty claim rate information under seal. (Id.

(citing McVicar v. Goodman Global, Inc., No. SA CV 13-1223-DOC(RNBx) (C.D. Cal.); 

Kotsur v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-1147-NS (E.D. Pa.))).2

 The Court agrees with Kotsur and McVicar that the warranty claim rate for 

Goodman evaporator coils satisfies the “good cause” standard and also concludes that 

“compelling reasons” exist to seal the claim rates. In Goodman’s industry, warranty claim 

rates are deemed classified commercial information that are kept strictly confidential 

from competitors. Accordingly, Goodman maintains its rates in a highly securitized 

manner. 

 For this reason, the Court will permit Goodman to file under seal documents that 

reflect Goodman’s actual warranty claim rate and data that could be manipulated to 

ascertain that rate. Many of Goodman’s proposed redactions, however, are far too broad. 

For manufacturing companies that offer a warranty program, warranty claims are a 

business reality. Simply because a document addresses warranty claims in nonspecific 

 

2

 Both of these courts applied the “good cause” standard when determining 

whether the documents should be filed under seal. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 20
Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 6 of 20
- 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 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

77 Declaration of 

Paul J. Sikorsky 

(Doc. 80) 

¶ 18, last sentence5

; 

¶ 20; ¶ 21; ¶ 23, 

sentence nos. 1 and 

2 

DENIED. The fact that this 

testimony innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims—

without expressing the actual rate or 

data that could be manipulated to 

determine the actual rate—is not 

enough to merit sealing the 

information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

77 Tostrud 

Exhibit D 

(Stephen Griffin 

Deposition) 

(Doc. 82) 

119:1–7; 119:19–

120:11

GRANTED. This testimony reflects 

Goodman’s internal analysis of 

warranty claims. Specifically, it 

reviews a document that analyzes 

claims reporting a leak based on the 

year of manufacture. Disclosure of 

this data could unfairly prejudice 

Goodman’s competitive standing. 

77 Tostrud 

Exhibit D 

(Stephen Griffin 

Deposition) 

(Doc. 82) 

117:12–14; 117:24–

118:25; 119:8–18; 

120:12–24 

DENIED. The fact that this 

testimony innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims or 

“leak counts”—without expressing 

the actual rate or data that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

77 Tostrud Entirety GRANTED. This testimony reflects 

 

5

 Goodman cites to and discloses the essence of this sentence in its Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support but does not seek 

to seal that portion of its Opposition. See (Doc. 85 at 7). As this information has been 

made available for public review, sealing it would serve no purpose. See Gambale v. 

Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that “[o]nce 

[information] is public, it necessarily remains public” and further stating that “[o]nce the 

cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over” (quotation omitted)). 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 7 of 20
- 8 - 

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 

Exhibit Q 

(Doc. 82) 

Goodman’s internal analysis of 

warranty claims. Specifically, it 

reviews a document that analyzes 

claims reporting a leak based on the 

year of manufacture. Disclosure of 

this data could unfairly prejudice 

Goodman’s competitive standing. 

86 Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class 

Certification and 

Memorandum in 

Support 

(Doc. 85)

Page 2, line 8; 

Page 6, line 21; 

Page 14, line 28; 

Page 16, line 13; 

Page 22, line 17; 

Page 29, line 27; 

Page 35, line 2

GRANTED. The warranty claim 

rate and data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate for Goodman 

evaporator coils should be kept 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

86 Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class 

Certification and 

Memorandum in 

Support 

(Doc. 85) 

Page 8, lines 1–2; 

Page 12, line 22; 

Page 13, lines 14–28 

DENIED. The fact that a document 

innocuously refers to the existence 

of warranty claims—without 

expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

86 Exhibit B to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Declaration of 

Marshall 

Blackham 

(Doc. 85) 

Portions of ¶¶ 20, 21 DENIED. The fact that a document 

innocuously refers to the existence 

of warranty claims—without 

expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—or to the percentage of coils 

that have an extended warranty, is 

not enough to merit sealing the 

information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

86 Exhibit E to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Portions of ¶ 13; 

Footnote 3 

GRANTED. The warranty claim 

rate and data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate for Goodman 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 8 of 20
- 9 - 

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 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Declaration of 

Dr. Itamar 

Simonson 

(Doc. 85) 

evaporator coils should be kept 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

86 Exhibit E to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Declaration of 

Dr. Itamar 

Simonson 

(Doc. 85) 

Portions of ¶ 34 DENIED. The fact that this 

testimony innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims—

without expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

86 Exhibit F to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Deposition of 

Paul J. Sikorsky 

(Doc. 85) 

11:16–17; 11:21–22; 

14:2; 36:4–5; 53:5–

54:14; 55:6–10 

GRANTED. The warranty claim 

rate and data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate for Goodman 

evaporator coils should be kept 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

86 Exhibit F to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Deposition of 

Paul J. Sikorsky 

(Doc. 85) 

54:17–55:2; 55:11–

15 

DENIED. The fact that this 

testimony innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims—

without expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

86 Exhibit G to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Declaration of 

Portions of ¶¶ 27, 

28, 29 

DENIED. The fact that this 

testimony innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims—

without expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 9 of 20
- 10 - 

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 

Michael E. 

Stevenson, 

Ph.D, P.E. 

(Doc. 85) 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

86 Exhibit K to 

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Class 

Certification, 

Declaration of 

William E. 

Wecker, Ph.D 

(Doc. 85) 

Portions of ¶¶ 9, 10; 

¶ 11; Footnotes 5, 6; 

Exhibits 2–5 

DENIED. While this testimony 

explains trends in the warranty 

claim rates for Goodman’s 

evaporator coil product it does not 

disclose the actual rates. The fact 

that this testimony innocuously 

refers to the existence of warranty 

claims—without expressing the 

actual rate or information that could 

be manipulated to determine the 

actual rate—is not enough to merit 

sealing the information from the 

public eye under either the “good 

cause” or “compelling reasons” 

standard. 

86 Defendants’ 

Motion to 

Exclude Certain 

Opinions of Paul 

J. Sikorsky 

(Doc. 84) 

Page 17, line 3; 

Page 17, line 24 

GRANTED. The warranty claim 

rate and data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate for Goodman 

evaporator coils should be kept 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

86 Defendants’ 

Motion to 

Exclude Certain 

Opinions of Paul 

J. Sikorsky 

(Doc. 84) 

Page 11, line 4 DENIED. The fact that a document 

innocuously refers to the existence 

of warranty claims—without 

expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

93 Supplemental 

Declaration of 

Paul J. Sikorsky 

in Support of 

¶¶ 5, 7, 8; Exhibit A GRANTED. The warranty claim 

rate and data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate for Goodman 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 10 of 20
- 11 - 

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 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 92) 

evaporator coils should be kept 

under seal. If the information as 

expressed in this document was 

made public, Goodman’s 

competitive standing could be 

unfairly prejudiced. 

93 Supplemental 

Declaration of 

Paul J. Sikorsky 

in Support of 

Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 92) 

¶ 10 DENIED. The fact that a document 

innocuously refers to the existence 

of warranty claims—without 

expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

106 Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 107) 

Page 3, lines 5–8; 

Page 3, lines 11–12; 

Page 3, lines 14–15; 

Page 3, lines 18–21; 

Page 4, lines 1–4; 

Page 4, lines 14–16; 

Page 4, line 19; 

Page 4, line 22; 

Page 4, line 24; 

Page 4, line 27–

Page 5, line 5; 

Page 5, line 25–

page 6, line 1 

DENIED. The fact that Plaintiff’s 

reply brief innocuously refers to the 

existence of warranty claims—

without expressing the actual rate or 

information that could be 

manipulated to determine the actual 

rate—is not enough to merit sealing 

the information from the public eye 

under either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard. 

106 Exhibit F to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

The following 

sections: 

(1) “Estimated 

Exposure,” 

(2) “Assessment 

Notes/Special Notes 

relative to 

information above,” 

and (3) “Project 

Details” 

GRANTED. These portions of the 

document display pricing 

information that, if disclosed, could 

unfairly prejudice Goodman’s 

competitive standing. 

106 Exhibit F to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not contain 

information that, by either “good 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 11 of 20
- 12 - 

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 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

cause” or “compelling reasons,” 

overcomes the public’s presumed 

access to court records. 

106 Exhibit G to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

The following 

sections: 

(1) “Estimated 

Exposure,” (2) 

“Business 

Justification,” and 

(3) User Joe 

McAbee’s 

11/30/2010 Log 

GRANTED. These portions of the 

document display pricing 

information that, if disclosed, could 

unfairly prejudice Goodman’s 

competitive standing. 

106 Exhibit G to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not contain 

information that, by either “good 

cause” or “compelling reasons,” 

overcomes the public’s presumed 

access to court records. 

106 Exhibit I to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

All “Action” 

sections 

GRANTED. The “Action” sections 

of the document describe internal 

testing techniques of Goodman 

evaporator coils that, if disclosed, 

could give competitors of Goodman 

an unfair competitive advantage. 

106 Exhibit I to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not contain any 

information that could be deemed a 

trade secret or that would unfairly 

prejudice Goodman if disclosed. 

106 Exhibit J to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

First paragraph of 

Wednesday, July 23, 

2003 8:19 AM email from Steve 

Griffin that begins 

with “Here is the 

report . . .” and 

ending with “. . . 

Apartments).” 

GRANTED. This portion of the 

document includes a warranty claim 

value for a specific customer, the 

disclosure of which could unfairly 

prejudice Goodman’s competitive 

standing. 

106 Exhibit J to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not discuss warranty 

claim rates and only references one 

dealer’s interactions with Goodman. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 12 of 20
- 13 - 

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 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

The information in this document 

does not satisfy the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standards to 

be sealed from the public eye. 

106 Exhibit L to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

Entirety DENIED. This document does not 

reference an actual warranty claim 

rate, but concerns a design 

modification that was implemented 

years ago and impact projections of 

that modification. Because 

Goodman physically modified a 

product that entered the market, the 

changes are already subject to public 

scrutiny. Consequently, documents 

evincing the changes do not meet 

either the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standard to 

merit sealing. 

106 Exhibit N to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

“Estimated 

Exposure” section 

GRANTED. This portion of the 

document displays pricing 

information that, if disclosed, could 

unfairly prejudice Goodman’s 

competitive standing. 

106 Exhibit N to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not contain 

information that overcomes the 

public’s presumed access to court 

records by either “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons.” 

106 Exhibit O to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

“Estimated 

Exposure” section 

GRANTED. This portion of the 

document displays pricing 

information that, if disclosed, could 

unfairly prejudice Goodman’s 

competitive standing. 

106 Exhibit O to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not contain 

information that overcomes the 

public’s presumed access to court 

records by either “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons.” 

106 Exhibit P to Entirety DENIED. This document does not 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 13 of 20
- 14 - 

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 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

contain information that overcomes 

the public’s presumed access to 

court records by either “good cause” 

or “compelling reasons.” 

106 Exhibit Q to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

Entirety DENIED. This document does not 

contain information that overcomes 

the public’s presumed access to 

court records by either “good cause” 

or “compelling reasons.” The 

warranty claim rate is not disclosed 

nor is data that could be 

manipulated to determine the 

warranty claim rate. 

B. Goodman’s Design and Manufacturing Processes 

Goodman hopes to seal all information related to its “design and manufacturing 

processes, including what Goodman ultimately did and did not elect to implement.” 

(Doc. 77 at 3). Like before, the Court agrees that—in general—material of this type may 

satisfy both the “good cause” and “compelling interest” standards. As Goodman 

observes, certain design and manufacturing processes entail “substantial cost” and are 

developed only through “substantial effort spanning multiple years.” (Id. at 10). Thus, 

disclosing the details of particular design and manufacturing processes could unfairly 

equip Goodman’s competitors with the opportunity to mimic the processes without the 

time and cost of development through trial and error. 

 Again, however, many of Goodman’s proposed redactions do not fall into the 

bucket of design and manufacturing processes such that the information should be sealed 

from the public. For example, Goodman has not shown that “specific prejudice or harm” 

would result from disclosing its Engineering Change Request (“ECR”) notification 

process. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. Nor is there any protectable interest in ECR 

documents describing physical alterations to Goodman products that have been in the 

market for years. See Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, cmt. b (1939) (“Matters which 

are completely disclosed by the goods which one markets cannot be his secret.”). Finally, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 14 of 20
Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 15 of 20
- 16 - 

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 

(Doc. 82-1 at 136), while another 

was publicly disclosed in Paul J. 

Sikorsky’s testimony, see (Doc. 80 

at 12–13). 

77 Tostrud Exhibit D 

(Stephen Griffin 

Deposition) 

(Doc. 82) 

68:17–21; 105:22–

106:5; 182:22–

183:3 

DENIED. This testimony does not 

concern trade secret information 

about Goodman’s manufacturing 

or design processes. Nor does 

Goodman present “good cause” or 

a “compelling reason” to 

overcome the presumption of 

public access to this record. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit E 

(Marshall 

Blackham 

Deposition) 

(Doc. 82) 

189:16–191:21; 

193:1–6; 194:4–14; 

194:18–195:24 

DENIED. Much of this testimony 

pertains to a self-described 

“marketing” scheme that, based on 

the records, did not entail 

“substantial cost” or “substantial 

effort spanning multiple years” to 

develop. Moreover, the design 

changes in this testimony were 

implemented in products that have 

been on the market for years. 

Finally, the gist of one of the 

design changes was publicly 

disclosed in Exhibit E to Jon A. 

Tostrud’s Declaration. See 

(Doc. 82-1 at 136). 

77 Tostrud Exhibit F 

(Doc. 82) 

First paragraph of 

Wednesday, July 

23, 2003 8:19 AM 

e-mail from Steve 

Griffin that begins 

with “Here is the 

report . . . .” and 

ending with “. . . 

Apartments).” 

GRANTED. This portion of the 

document includes a warranty 

claim value for a specific 

customer, the disclosure of which 

could unfairly prejudice 

Goodman’s competitive standing. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit F 

(Doc. 82) 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document does not reference 

information that must be sealed 

from the public. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit I 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety GRANTED. This document 

contains information regarding 

Goodman’s product development 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 16 of 20
- 17 - 

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 

that, if disclosed, could give 

competitors of Goodman an unfair 

commercial advantage. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit O 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety DENIED. This document 

concerns a design modification 

that was implemented years ago. 

Because Goodman physically 

modified a product that has 

entered the market, the changes are 

already subject to public scrutiny. 

Documents evincing the changes 

therefore do not satisfy either the 

“good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. Finally, this 

design change was publicly 

disclosed in Paul J. Sikorsky’s 

testimony. See (Doc. 80 at 12–13). 

77 Tostrud Exhibit P 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety DENIED. This document 

concerns a design modification 

that was implemented years ago. 

Because Goodman physically 

modified a product that has 

entered the market, the changes are 

already subject to public scrutiny. 

Documents evincing the changes 

therefore do not satisfy either the 

“good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. Finally, this 

design change was publicly 

disclosed in Paul J. Sikorsky’s 

testimony. See (Doc. 80 at 12–13). 

77 Tostrud Exhibit R 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety DENIED. This document does not 

describe a Goodman 

manufacturing or design process 

that warrants sealing under either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

interests” standard. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit S 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety DENIED. This document 

concerns a design modification 

that was implemented years ago. 

Because Goodman physically 

modified a product that has 

entered the market, the changes are 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 17 of 20
- 18 - 

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 

already subject to public scrutiny. 

Consequently, documents evincing 

the changes do not satisfy either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

77 Tostrud Exhibit T 

(Doc. 82) 

Entirety DENIED. This document 

concerns a design modification 

that was implemented years ago. 

Because Goodman physically 

modified a product that has 

entered the market, the changes are 

already subject to public scrutiny. 

Consequently, documents evincing 

the changes do not satisfy either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

106 Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 107) 

Page 3, lines 22–23; 

Page 3, lines 27–28 

DENIED. These portions of 

Plaintiff’s reply relate to design 

modifications that were 

implemented years ago. Because 

Goodman physically modified a 

product that has since entered the 

market, the changes are already 

subject to public scrutiny. 

Consequently, documents evincing 

the changes do not satisfy either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

106 Exhibit C to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

Paragraph 3 of 

Tuesday, November 

17, 2009, 8:36 AM 

e-mail from Neel 

Gupte, beginning 

with “George, 

Vinny is working 

on . . . .” and ending 

with “. . . but it has 

been done.” 

GRANTED. This paragraph 

discusses confidential design 

information the disclosure of 

which could give competitors of 

Goodman and unfair competitive 

advantage. 

106 Exhibit C to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

All else DENIED. The remainder of this 

document concerns a design 

modification that was 

implemented years ago. Because 

Goodman physically modified a 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 18 of 20
- 19 - 

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 

(Doc. 108) product that has since entered the 

market, the changes are already 

subject to public scrutiny. 

Consequently, documents evincing 

the changes do not satisfy either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

106 Exhibit K to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

Entirety GRANTED. This document 

reflects confidential information 

regarding internal analyses of 

products and materials used in 

manufacturing Goodman products. 

If disclosed, this document could 

give competitors of Goodman an 

unfair commercial advantage. 

106 Exhibit M to 

Plaintiff’s Reply 

in Support of 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Doc. 108) 

Entirety DENIED. This document 

concerns a design modification 

that was implemented years ago. 

Because Goodman physically 

modified a product that has since 

entered the market, the changes are 

already subject to public scrutiny. 

Consequently, documents evincing 

the changes do not satisfy either 

the “good cause” or “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

C. Goodman’s Pricing Information 

Goodman also seeks to seal Exhibit H to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion 

for Class Certification arguing that the document references confidential pricing 

information. (Doc. 106). The Court finds that the details contained in Exhibit H are 

sensitive information that justifies sealing. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 

569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (permitting a party to file under seal the pricing terms of a 

licensing agreement). 

III. Conclusion 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of 

Sealing Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Supporting Evidence 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 19 of 20
- 20 - 

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 

(Doc. 77) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Goodman’s Motion to File under Seal: (1) 

Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and 

Memorandum in Support, and Portions of Certain Exhibits Thereto; and (2) Portions of 

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Paul J. Sikorsky and Memorandum 

in Support (Doc. 86) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth 

above. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in 

Support of Sealing Portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 93) is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART as set forth above. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law in 

Support of Sealing (1) Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Class 

Certification; and (2) Certain Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 106) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART as set forth above. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file under seal the 

documents lodged at Docket Nos. 94, 100, 101, 109, and 110. 

 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by no later than ten (10) days from the date of 

this Order, the parties shall file a Notice of Compliance appended with versions of the 

documents at Docket Nos. 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 92, 107, and 108 that are redacted in 

accordance with this Order. 

 Dated this 1st day of February, 2016. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 113 Filed 02/02/16 Page 20 of 20