Court filing

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential Information… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157)

Summary

In Document 157, filed 02/06/23 in Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC before Hon. Edward M. Chen, Defendant Thomson Reuters files an administrative motion to file under seal confidential information regarding its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Finance Scholars Group, Inc. (Dr. Terry Lloyd). It argues that the lesser good cause standard applies because the material relates to a motion to exclude expert testimony, though it says the compelling reasons standard would also be met. Most proposed redactions target non-public financial information about the CLEAR platform, which it says competitors could use for their own purposes, including the split of recurring and transactional revenue. Table 1 lists the specific portions to seal and the basis for each, and the table runs past the end of the available text.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential Information… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 157).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 157. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2023-02-06-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-157-0-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-157-0/, SHA-256 e32a36a8ff6ac47925e3922caae753ebda15e522bdb82bdf2b4dd633e0a6a9b1.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 6

1 Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567 Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com GGallego@perkinscoie.com
2 Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice PERKINS COIE LLP
3 NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com 3150 Porter Drive
Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
4 EEarl@perkinscoie.com Telephone: 650.838.4300
Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice Facsimile: 650.838.4350
5 AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
7 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 206.359.8000 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
8 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Dallas, TX 75201-3347
Telephone: 214.965.7700
9 Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: 214.965.7799
Thomson Reuters Corporation
10

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14

15 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
16 all others similarly situated, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL CONFIDENTIAL
17 Plaintiffs, INFORMATION REGARDING
DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS’
18 v. MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF
FINANCE SCHOLARS GROUP, INC.
19 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, (DR. TERRY LLOYD)
(CIV. L.R. 7-11 AND 79-5)
20 Defendant.
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
21

28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 2 of 6

1 I. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation

3 (“TR”) submits this administrative motion (“Sealing Motion”) for leave to file under seal certain

4 information related to its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Finance Scholars Group, Inc

5 (Dr. Terry Lloyd) (“Motion to Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony”).

6 This Sealing Motion is supported by the below Memorandum of Points and Authorities;

7 the Omnibus Declaration of Hayden M. Schottlaender in Support of TR’s (1) Motion to Exclude

8 Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Professor Joseph Turow and (2) Motion to Exclude Testimony of

9 Plaintiffs’ Expert Finance Scholars Group, Inc. (Dr. Terry Lloyd) (“Schottlaender Declaration”);

10 the previously filed Declaration of Kevin Appold in Support of TR’s Administrative Motion to

11 File Under Seal Confidential Information related to its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

12 Certification (“Appold Sealing Declaration”) (Doc. 150-3); the Stipulated Protective Order

13 entered in this action (Doc. 70); and all pleadings and papers on file.

14 II. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

15 A. Legal Standard

16 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, but “access to judicial

17 records is not absolute.” Kamanaka v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

18 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The legal

19 standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed depends on whether the document is

20 attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion. See id. at 1179-80. Documents

21 attached to dispositive motions—like motions for summary judgment—may be sealed only when

22 the proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. But documents attached to non-

23 dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially—like motions to exclude expert

24 testimony consistent with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)—

25 may be sealed upon a lesser showing of good cause. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank,

26 Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (applying

27 compelling reasons standard to materials attached to summary judgment motion and “the lower

28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC -1- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 3 of 6

1 good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert motions”). What reasons

2 are sufficient to justify sealing documents is generally “left to the sound discretion of the trial

3 court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting

4 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)).

5 The lesser, good cause standard applies here because the information that TR seeks leave

6 to file under seal relates to TR’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony. But even if the

7 higher, compelling reasons, standard applied, that standard is also met for the same reasons

8 discussed below and in the previously filed Appold Sealing Declaration (Doc. 150-3).

9 B. Good cause and compelling reasons exist to partially seal (i.e., redact) certain
information related to TR’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony.
10

11 Table 1 describes the information that TR seeks leave to file under seal with respect to its

12 Motion to Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony and with respect to Exhibit 1 to the Schottlaender

13 Declaration, which consists of excerpts of Dr. Lloyd’s deposition transcript. Most of the

14 redactions proposed in Table 1 target financial information related to the CLEAR platform that is

15 not already public, such that disclosure would harm TR “because CLEAR competitors could

16 leverage the detailed information for their own competitive purposes.” Appold Sealing Decl. ¶ 8.

17 Good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal this information. See, e.g., Prescott v. Reckitt

18 Benckiser LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022)

19 (collecting cases and noting that when it comes to “confidential financial information . . . [c]ourts

20 within the Ninth Circuit commonly grant sealing requests to protect exactly this type of

21 information”); Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 WL 12400041, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

22 30, 2013) (finding compelling reasons to seal “information about . . . profits, losses, income,

23 investments, and expenses” where “the public disclosure of this information could harm these

24 companies if the information was used by its competitors”); Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812,

25 at *2 (finding good cause to seal documents concerning “Defendant’s financial performance and

26 company strategy” because “public release of these documents could give non-party competitors

27 an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival products”); Linex Techs., Inc. v.

28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC -2- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 4 of 6

1 Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014)

2 (finding good cause to seal material with “sensitive financial information”). For similar reasons,

3 good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal Dr. Lloyd’s estimates regarding CLEAR’s

4 revenue, profits, and costs, which directly or indirectly reveal confidential information about

5 CLEAR finances, and which “are inaccurate, or at least grossly misleading, and could therefore

6 result in a misleading or inaccurate picture of CLEAR and related business practices.” Appold

7 Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.

8 TABLE 1

9 Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

10 Motion After “Over the period Reveals non-public information about the
11 (2:7) Dr. Lloyd analyzed, revenue earned through CLEAR, specifically,
recurring revenue made up the proportion of recurring versus transactional
12 more than” and before “of revenue.
TR’s revenue”
13 Public disclosure would harm TR. See Appold
Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
14

15 Motion After “from CLEAR, Same as row above.
(2:8) while transactional
16 revenue accounted for just
under” and before “See id.
17 at 3.”
18
Motion Table excerpted from FSG Reveals non-public information about the
19 (3:2) / Dr. Lloyd Expert Report, revenue earned through CLEAR.
first row titled:
20 “Revenues” (all Public disclosure would harm TR. See Appold
21 data/information Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
contained under columns
22 2017-2021)

23 Motion Table excerpted from FSG Same as row above.
24 (3:4) / Dr. Lloyd Expert Report,
third row titled: “CLEAR
25 US Revenues” (all
data/information
26 contained under columns
2017-2021)
27

28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC -3- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 5 of 6

1
Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal
2
Motion Table excerpted from FSG Same as rows above.
3 (3:7) / Dr. Lloyd Expert Report,
fifth row titled: “CLEAR
4
California Revenues” (all
5 data/information
contained under columns
6 2017-2021)
7
Motion Table excerpted from FSG Reveals non-public information about Plaintiffs’
8 (3:8) / Dr. Lloyd Expert Report, expert’s inaccurate and misleading estimate of
sixth row titled: the percentage of “natural persons” about whom
9 “California Natural information is available in CLEAR (versus
Persons” (all information about businesses and other entities).
10 data/information Public disclosure would harm Thomson Reuters.
11 contained under columns See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.
2017-2021)
12
Motion Table excerpted from FSG Reveals non-public information about the
13 (3:10) / Dr. Lloyd Expert Report, revenue earned through CLEAR.
14 seventh row titled:
“CLEAR California Public disclosure would harm TR. See Appold
15 Revenues / Persons” (all Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
data/information
16 contained under columns
2017-2021)
17

18 Motion After “Dr. Lloyd therefore Reveals non-public information about Plaintiffs’
(5:7) concluded that plaintiffs expert’s inaccurate and misleading estimate of
19 are entitled to” and before transactional royalties and CLEAR profit
“of his calculated margins.
20 revenue”
Public disclosure would harm Thomson Reuters.
21 See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.
22
Motion After “TR realizes a” and Same as row above.
23 (10:17) before “profit margin from
operating CLEAR.”
24

25 Schottlaender Lloyd Dep. at 61:18 Reveals non-public information about the
Decl. Ex. 1 (beginning of line and revenue earned through CLEAR.
26 before “million.”)
Public disclosure would harm TR. See Appold
27 Sealing Decl. ¶ 10.
28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC -4- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 157 Filed 02/06/23 Page 6 of 6

1 III. CONCLUSION

2 TR respectfully requests that the Court issue an order allowing TR to file its Motion to

3 Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony and Exhibit 1 to the Schottlaender Declaration partially under

4 seal by applying the redactions described above in Table 1.

7
Dated: February 6, 2023 Perkins Coie LLP
8

9 By: /s/ Hayden M. Schottlaender
Hayden M. Schottlaender
10 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com

11 Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
Corporation
12

28
NO. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC -5- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE MOTION TO
EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.157.0.pdf
Size: 170,215 bytes
SHA-256: e32a36a8ff6ac47925e3922caae753ebda15e522bdb82bdf2b4dd633e0a6a9b1
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.157.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)