Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.
Filing
177
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 142 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Limited Portions of Opposition (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
CENTURY ALUMINUM CO., et al.,
8
9
10
11
Plaintiffs,
v.
AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
12
Case No. 11-cv-02514-YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL LIMITED PORTIONS OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO AGCS’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
13
14
On July 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Limited
15
Portions of Its Opposition to AGCS’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of
16
Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion to Seal”). (Dkt. No. 142.)
17
Plaintiffs seek to file under seal: (1) deposition transcript excerpts and exhibits from the
18
deposition of Sandra Inouye, Allianz’s 30(b)(6) witness (“Inouye Transcript”); (2) deposition
19
transcript excerpts and exhibits from the deposition of Allianz witness Gaute Storhaug (“Storhaug
20
Transcript”); (3) deposition transcript excerpts from the deposition of Allianz witness Olaf
21
Oppermann (“Oppermann Transcript”); and (4) a document produced by Allianz (AGCS-OC
22
0008382). Id. at 2.
23
Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), Defendant submitted the Declaration of Michael J. Carcich
24
Regarding Century’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal. (Dkt. No. 170
25
(“Carcich Decl.”).) Defendant maintains that certain pages of the Storhaug Transcript, namely
26
pp. 24:1–25:20 and pp. 84–85), and AGCS-OC 0008382 should be sealed. Carcich Decl. ¶ 4.
27
Mr. Carcich states that “[t]he other documents may be filed publicly.” Id. As such, the Court
28
DENIES the Motion to Seal with respect to the Inouye Transcript and Oppermann Transcript.
1
As to pp. 24:1–25:20 of the Storhaug Transcript, Defendant states that Mr. Storhaug
2
“testified about work performed for another client not involved in this action” which “involved
3
another legal proceeding in which he did not testify and which ended in a settlement before trial.”
4
Carcich Decl. ¶ 5. Further, Mr. Storhaug requested that his testimony remain confidential with
5
regard to his work on this other matter. Id. As to pp. 84–85 of the Storhaug Transcript, Mr.
6
Storhaug “testified concerning information to be obtained in connection with his research of this
7
matter from dealings of other employees of his firm with other clients of the firm” and he
8
requested that such testimony be kept confidential. Id. ¶ 8.
9
As to AGCS-OC 0008382, Defendant contends that the document “contains or otherwise
10
reflects confidential information regarding the claim file of an assured of ACGS not involved in
11
this litigation” and “reflects the coverage details offered to an assured unrelated to this matter.”
12
Carcich Decl. ¶ 9. Defendant further contends that the document reflects confidential business
13
information and operations strategy and could be used by AGCS’ competitors to gain an unfair
14
advantage. Id.
15
A motion to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion that are part of the judicial
16
record is governed by the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605
17
F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that
18
‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of
19
access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County
20
21
22
of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant
factors including the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure
of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or
infringement upon trade secrets.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,
23
49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). In effect, an order authorizing sealing of a document would
24
25
require the court to lock the courtroom doors as to the proffered material during trial. While the
decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the trial court’s discretion, the basis must be
26
compelling and the court must articulate its reasoning in approving such a request. Pintos, 605
27
F.3d at 679. Further, given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order
28
must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). “A stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate
-2-
1
documents as sealable[] will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Id.
2
(emphasis added).
3
Having reviewed the documents at issue, the Court DENIES the Motion to Seal with
4
respect to the entirety of the Storhaug Transcript. Although Defendant has sought to narrowly
5
tailor its request for sealing, pp. 24:1–25:20 and pp. 84–85 do not share any trade secrets. The
6
Court finds it unlikely that this material will be improperly used for a scandalous or libelous
7
purpose. Further, Mr. Storhaug has been engaged to provide expert testimony in this case. Pages
8
24:1–25:20 relate to his qualifications and experience as an expert, and pp. 84–85 concern
9
information obtained in connection with his research. To the extent that Defendant will rely on
10
his testimony at trial, the public’s interest in the judicial process strongly favors disclosure,
11
particularly where there is a dispositive motion and no specific harm has been identified by
12
Defendant. While Mr. Storhaug may have requested that the transcript excerpts at issue be
13
deemed “confidential,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) states that even the stipulation of the parties to designate
14
documents as sealable will not suffice to allow the filing of the documents under seal. For these
15
reasons, the Court ORDERS that the Storhaug Transcript be publicly-filed.
16
On the other hand, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal the document bates-labeled
17
AGCS-OC 0008382. This document contains confidential information regarding the claim file of
18
an assured of AGCS not involved in this litigation. The Court agrees that competitive harm may
19
result to ACGS if this document is publicly-disseminated, as it will reveal confidential business
20
information and strategies that Defendant employs with respect to issuance of its insurance
21
policies.
22
As set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED as AGCS-OC 0008382, which
23
is Exhibit 21 to the Declaration of Amanda Schapel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
24
AGCS’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for
25
Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 159). The Motion to Seal is DENIED as to all other
26
documents. The parties must comply with General Order 62 with regard to the proper filing
27
procedures. In light of the briefing schedule on these Cross-Motions, all documents must be
28
either publicly-filed or e-filed under seal in compliance with this Order by Tuesday, August 14,
-3-
1
2
2012.
In light of the fact that later-filed exhibits will be intended to correspond to an earlier-filed
3
declaration, it will be the parties’ responsibility to ensure that the Court has two complete
4
versions of all documents necessary to decide the motions. It is further the parties’ responsibility
5
to ensure that all documents are clearly-marked such that the Court can easily determine where
6
the documents should be placed in existing Chambers binders. Tabs and updated indexes for the
7
binders should be provided.
8
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 142.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
Dated: August 10, 2012
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
