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

DAVID RANDOLPH SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

SEALING MOTIONS

Re: ECF 101, 103, 111, 116

Before the Court are four administrative motions to file documents under seal. ECF 

101, 103, 111, 116. The first two, ECF 101 and 103, were filed by plaintiff David 

Randolph Scott and seek to seal information that defendants Citizen Watch Company of 

America (“Bulova”) and Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Kay”) designated as confidential pursuant 

to the parties’ stipulated protective order. The second two, ECF 111 and 116, were filed by 

Bulova and seek to seal Bulova’s own confidential information.

The documents sought to be sealed here relate to the defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment and so are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of 

action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Consequently, they are sealable only if the Court finds there are “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Compelling 

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC Document 121 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 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

reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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.” Id. at 

1179 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

In addition, Civil Local Rule 79-5 states that a sealing order is appropriate only 

upon a request establishing that the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a 

trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must 

conform with Civil [Local Rule] 79-5(d).” Id. If the moving party seeks to seal material 

that another party designated as confidential, the designating party must file a supporting

declaration within four days of the motion establishing that all the designated material is 

sealable. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

Scott’s motions seek to seal Bulova’s and Kay’s designated material, so responsive 

filings were required. See id. Bulova filed a response seeking only to seal five paragraphs

in the expert report of Steven Larry Londre, and stating its non-opposition to the remaining 

documents being filed publicly. See ECF 106. Kay did not file a supporting declaration. 

The Court therefore DENIES Scott’s motions, ECF 101, 103, except for the redactions 

Bulova proposes, which are addressed below.

The table below sets out the Court’s rulings on the redactions Bulova proposes in its 

responsive filing, ECF 106, and Bulova’s two motions at ECF 111 and 116. Where 

granted, it is because Bulova’s request is narrowly tailored and establishes that the 

document is sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard.

//

//

//

//

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC Document 121 Filed 01/18/18 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 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

ECF Material Sought to 

be Sealed 

Bulova’s Proffered Reason for 

Sealing

Court’s Ruling

106 Paragraphs 1(m) 

(page 8), 6(d), 7(c), 

10(d), and footnote 26

of the Expert Report 

of Larry Steven 

Londre (ECF 117-4)

Reveals confidential and 

competitively sensitive Bulova 

business information, including 

non-public information regarding 

Bulova’s marketing strategies, 

sales and budgets, and negotiated 

agreements with third parties.

GRANTED.

111 Ex. A to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 111-4) 

(BUL001598-

BUL001603) 

Ex. B to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 111-4) 

(BUL043178-043179) 

Contains confidential and 

proprietary information regarding 

the technical specifications for the 

Commemorative Lunar Watch.

Reveals Bulova’s confidential 

marketing strategies in relation to

its development of media content.

GRANTED.

DENIED. The 

Court cannot 

discern any 

confidential 

marketing strategies 

revealed in this 

exchange.

116 Ex. A to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL007315-

BUL007316)

Ex. B to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL023896-

BUL023925)

Ex. C to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL009826-

BUL009827)

Ex. D to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL001598-

BUL001603)

Public disclosure of this email 

would allow Bulova’s 

competitors to take advantage of 

Bulova’s “damage control” 

strategies and would place Bulova 

at a competitive disadvantage in 

its future negotiations with public 

relations firms.

Reveals Bulova’s marketing 

strategies that Bulova’s 

competitors could copy or 

counteract by, for example, 

marketing competing products to 

Bulova’s target audience.

Discusses Bulova’s confidential 

price point and distribution plans 

for the Commemorative Lunar 

Watch and discusses Bulova’s 

decision-making process for 

selecting a public relations firm.

Contains non-public, proprietary 

technical specifications for the 

Watch, reveals Bulova’s plans 

and strategies for developing the 

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC Document 121 Filed 01/18/18 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 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

Ex. E to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL010345-

BUL010371)

Ex. F to Presser Decl. 

(ECF 116-4) 

(BUL043178-

BUL043179)

Watch, and discloses Bulova’s 

confidential manufacturing 

partner.

Contains Bulova’s sales 

information, which could reveal

Bulova’s business strategies in 

connection with the sale and 

distribution of its products.

Reveals Bulova’s strategies for 

developing content in 

collaboration with the media, 

which could allow Bulova’s 

competitors to copy or undermine 

Bulova’s strategies.

DENIED. The 

request is not 

narrowly tailored.

GRANTED.

By January 25, 2018, the following documents must be filed publicly and in 

unredacted form:

 All documents sought to be sealed in Scott’s motions (ECF 101 and 103), except 

the redactions to the Londre expert report articulated above.

 Exhibit B to Presser Declaration (BUL043178-043179)

 Exhibit E to the Presser Declaration (BUL010345-BUL010371).

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2). 

In the interest of justice, Bulova may submit by January 23, 2018, an optional

follow-up declaration proposing narrow redactions, rather than wholesale sealing, to 

Exhibit E to the Presser Declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2018 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC Document 121 Filed 01/18/18 Page 4 of 4