Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01515-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Bracikowski
Defendant
Enerpac Tool Group Corp.
Defendant
Thad Hales
Defendant
Tri Tool, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRI TOOL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THAD HALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-1515-DAD-CSK

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL

(ECF No. 48)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tri Tool, Inc.’s request to seal portions of 

documents it plans to file in connection with an anticipated motion for terminating 

sanctions. See 7/25/2024 Pl. Req. Seal (ECF No. 48); 7/25/2024 Pl. Mem. (submitted for 

in camera review).

Plaintiff maintains claims for, among other things, misappropriation of trade 

secrets, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, against Defendants Thad Hales, Mike Bracikowski, and 

Enerpac Tool Group Corp. (ECF No. 29.) On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

sanctions, which included a declaration from attorney Dylan Wiseman (ECF Nos. 45 and 

45-1), and a request to seal documents for its sanctions motion (ECF No. 44). On July 

24, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions without prejudice for failure to follow Local 

Rule 141. (ECF No. 47.) The Court noted Plaintiff failed to submit unredacted versions of 

five exhibits to chambers, and improperly filed redacted versions of the documents on 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 1 of 6
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

the docket before the request to seal had been approved. (Id.) For guidance, the Court 

stated that any renewed request to seal should clearly identify which portions of the 

documents Plaintiff seeks to have sealed, and include legal authority justifying Plaintiff’s

request to seal. (Id.)

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a renewed request to seal portions of its

anticipated motion for terminating sanctions. See 7/25/2024 Pl. Req. Seal; 7/25/2024 Pl. 

Mem. (submitted for in camera review). Plaintiff sent unredacted versions of the 

documents to chambers for review, except for the same five exhibits which were 

resubmitted in redacted form. 7/25/2024 Pl. Mot. Sanct.; 7/25/2024 Wiseman Decl.

(submitted for in camera review). The Court ordered Defendant Enerpac to submit an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to seal and also requested 

unredacted versions of the five exhibits if any party possessed them. (ECF No. 50.) 

Defendant Enerpac submitted a statement of non-opposition directly to chambers, and 

no party provided unredacted versions of the five exhibits. (ECF No. 52.)

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

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commnc'ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Thus, courts in the Ninth Circuit “start with a strong 

presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When a request to seal is tied to a “dispositive” 

motion, i.e., a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, the 

legal standard used is a “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, because terminating sanctions are 

dispositive of a party’s claim or defense, the compelling reasons standard applies. See 

Keating v. Jastremski, 2020 WL 1813549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2020) (utilizing 

compelling reasons standard for request to seal related to motion for terminating 

sanctions because the substantive motion was “more than tangentially related to the 

merits of this case” and so “counsels against applying the good cause standard”); 

Charles v. Target Corp., 2022 WL 3205047, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2022) (applying 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 2 of 6
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

compelling reasons standard to motion for spoliation sanctions).

To decide whether the party requesting to seal has carried its burden under the 

compelling reasons standard, the court balances the reasons for secrecy with the 

public's interests in disclosure. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). The court cannot rely on “hypothesis or conjecture” nor on

assertions that merely cite a general category of privilege. Id. at 1184. Instead, a party 

that wishes to keep its documents secret must point out a “specific linkage” between its 

interests in secrecy and those documents. Id. at 1182, 1184 (“[C]onclusory offerings do 

not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to 

the documents.”).

Here, Plaintiff’s request is specific in the portions of the two documents it wishes 

to file in redacted form on the public docket. 7/25/2024 Pl. Req. Seal. Plaintiff identifies

seven segments of its anticipated motion for terminating sanctions; four paragraphs in 

the anticipated declaration of Dylan Wiseman; substantial portions of Exhibits 3-7; and 

nine identical paragraphs in Exhibit 13. Id. at 2-3. As to why it seeks sealing, Plaintiff 

cites the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 22), general principles of 

“confidential and proprietary information,” and the “attorney-client privilege and attorney 

work product doctrine.” Id. at 3.

Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of its request to seal cites the same documents 

and principles, and makes the following argument: 

A party’s reasons are deemed compelling when the judicial 

record might become “a vehicle for improper purposes” 

including a “release of trade secrets.” [Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)] (citing Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Where a filing 

contains confidential business information, the disclosure of 

which would create the risk of competitive injury, there is a 

compelling reason sufficient to justify sealing that information. 

Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp, 658 F.3d 1150, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 

2011) (finding that releasing confidential information would 

cause injury, and sealing the record to prevent such injury); 

see also Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 

(9th Cir. 2006) (finding the same); Karl Storz EndoscopyAmerica, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.[,] 2016 WL 2855260, at *9-10 

(N.D. Cal. May 13, 2016); Berlanga v. Polaris Indus., Inc.[,]

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 3 of 6
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

2023 WL 2752483, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023) (citing E.D. 

Cal. L.R. 140(b) (stating that redaction is also appropriate to 

protect “proprietary or trade secret information.”). Further, 

attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine are 

sufficient justifications for sealing. In re Hewlett-Packard Co. 

Shareholder Derivative Litig., 716 Fed. App’x. 603, 609 (9th 

Cir. 2017).

7/25/2024 Pl. Mem. at 3-4. Plaintiff concludes the redacted portions of the proposed 

filings “fall[] within the well-recognized exceptions to the general right of access to 

judicial records and documents for confidential business information” because they have 

been designated by Plaintiff as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” citing generalized confidentiality principles and “the 

attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.” Id. This is the extent of Plaintiff’s 

analysis. See id.

As an initial matter, no party to the case has unredacted versions of Exhibits 3-7 

of the Wiseman declaration, and therefore, Plaintiff has no option but to file the redacted 

versions of these exhibits. (See ECF No. 50.) As a result, Plaintiff’s request to seal as to 

Exhibits 3-7 is denied as moot because the Court cannot grant a request to seal already 

redacted documents that the Court cannot evaluate.

As to the remaining portions of Plaintiff’s request to seal, Plaintiff does not 

sufficiently meet the compelling reasons standard. First, Plaintiff makes no effort to 

describe why any of the redacted portions contain protectable trade secret information. 

In reviewing the unredacted versions of the anticipated motion and Wiseman 

Declaration, the Court notes the only portions that arguably relate to Plaintiff’s trade 

secret claims is the statement at 7:7-10 of the forthcoming motion for sanctions, as 

repeated in the nine redacted paragraphs of Exhibit 13 of the Wiseman Declaration. 

7/25/2024 Pl. Mot. Sanct., 7/25/2024 Wiseman Decl. However, these statements do not 

appear to contain any trade secret information, but are merely a portion of Defendant 

Enerpac’s response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests concerning the fact of its possession 

of electronically stored information. Thus, Plaintiff’s request fails. See Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1184 (“The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's 

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 4 of 6
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

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 

compel the court to seal its records.”); Berlanga, 2023 WL 3168514, at *2 (denying 

renewed request to seal for failure to meet compelling reasons standard where parties 

failed to explain why alleged information was protectable as trade secret). 

Second, a majority of the information Plaintiff seeks to redact appears based on

Plaintiff’s attorney-client and work product arguments. See 7/25/2024 Pl. Mot. Sanct., 

7/25/2024 Wiseman Decl. However, Plaintiff makes no effort to explain why the attorneyclient privilege and work product doctrine apply to the redacted lines in the anticipated 

motion for sanctions and paragraphs 6-9 of the Wiseman declaration. See Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1184 (stating that the court cannot rely on “hypothesis or conjecture” or 

assertions that merely cite a general category of privilege). 

Third, the Court notes that much of the information contained in the portions 

Plaintiff seeks to redact appear in unredacted form in other places in the anticipated 

motion and Wiseman Declaration. See, e.g., 7/25/2024 Pl. Req. Seal at 2:11-28 

(disclosing information about the fact of an attorney-client relationship), 5:10-13 (same); 

7/25/2024 Wiseman Decl. at 2 (same), 4:12-15 (disclosing the same information as in 

the proposed redactions in the nine paragraphs of Exhibit 13), 35 (disclosing name of 

counsel that was redacted in the request to seal at 8:4). Thus, Plaintiff’s request to seal 

fails because it requests to seal the same information disclosed to the public elsewhere. 

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184 (“[C]onclusory offerings do not rise to the level of 

‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.”).

ORDER

As to Exhibits 3-7 of the Wiseman declaration, Plaintiff’s request to seal is denied 

as moot because the only version of these exhibits that Plaintiff and Defendants have is 

the redacted version. (See ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff may therefore file Exhibits 3-7 in their 

redacted form. For the reasons stated above, the remainder of Plaintiff’s request to seal 

(ECF No. 48) is denied without prejudice.

/ / /

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 5 of 6
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

Dated: August 7, 2024

3, trit.1515

Case 2:22-cv-01515-DAD-CSK Document 53 Filed 08/08/24 Page 6 of 6