Court filing
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential Information… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 177)
No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 177 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 177 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 4
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
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
15 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
all others similarly situated,
16 UNDER SEAL CONFIDENTIAL
Plaintiffs, INFORMATION REGARDING
17 THOMSON REUTERS’ REPLY BRIEF IN
v. SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
18 EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF FINANCE
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, SCHOLARS GROUP, INC. (DR. TERRY
19 LLOYD)
Defendant.
20
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE REPLY TO MOTION
TO EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 177 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 4
1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Thomson Reuters submits this
2 administrative motion (“Sealing Motion”) for leave to file under seal certain information related
3 to its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Exclude Testimony of Finance Scholars Group, Inc.
4 (Dr. Terry Lloyd) (“Reply”). This Sealing Motion is supported by the previously filed Declaration
5 of Kevin Appold in Support of TR’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential
6 information related to its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, Doc. 150-3
7 (“Second Sealing Declaration”), the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this action, Doc. 70,
8 and all pleadings and papers on file.
9 LEGAL STANDARD
10 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, but “access to judicial
11 records is not absolute.” Kamanaka v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
12 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The legal
13 standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed depends on whether the document is
14 attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion. See id. at 1179-80. Documents
15 attached to dispositive motions—like motions for summary judgment—may be sealed only when
16 the proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. But documents attached to non-
17 dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially—like motions to exclude expert
18 testimony consistent with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)—
19 may be sealed upon a lesser showing of good cause. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank,
20 Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (applying
21 compelling reasons standard to materials attached to summary judgment motion and “the lower
22 good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert motions”).
23 The lesser, good cause standard applies here because the relevant materials are associated
24 with Thomson Reuters’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Lloyd’s Testimony. But even if the higher,
25 compelling reasons, standard applied, that standard is also met for the same reasons discussed
26 below and in the Second Sealing Declaration.
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -1- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE REPLY TO MOTION
TO EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 177 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 4
1 ARGUMENT
2 Good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal the text from Thomson Reuters’ Reply
3 identified in Table 1 because the text reveals the identity of a third-party licensor of certain types
4 of data accessible through CLEAR, the disclosure of which would cause harm to Thomson
5 Reuters. See Doc 150-3 ¶ 11. For example, competitors might use information about the identity
6 of this third-party licensor to target the same licensor for their own products. See Nixon v. Warner
7 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (recognizing that it is proper to seal business
8 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). And the isolated fact that this
9 third party licenses data accessible through CLEAR might be taken out of context and used to
10 give a misimpression about CLEAR and associated business practices. See Adtrader, Inc. v.
11 Google LLC, No. 17-cv-0782, 2020 WL 6389186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) (sealing
12 portions of documents that present “information without context [because it could] harm Google
13 by providing an incomplete and misleading picture of its crediting practices and capabilities”);
14 Aleksandr Urakhchin v. Allianz Asset Mgmt. of Am., No. 15-cv-1614, 2017 WL 11643350, at *4
15 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017) (sealing portions of emails that competitors could present “to the
16 marketplace out-of-context and place the investment option in a negative light”). Finally,
17 disclosure would unnecessarily disclose information about a third party that is not subject to this
18 litigation. See, e.g., O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. C-13-3826, 2015 WL 355496, at *2 (N.D.
19 Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (Chen, J.) (recognizing that a non-party’s privacy interest in information with
20 ‘little or no relevance to the issues raised by [the] summary judgment motions’ is sufficient to
21 satisfy the compelling reasons standard”) (citation omitted).
22 Table 1
23
Cite Portion(s) to Seal
24
Reply (6:1-2) Page 6, lines 1-2 (after “For example, TR has paid a flat-rate royalty
25 to the” and before cite to footnote 1)
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE REPLY TO MOTION
TO EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 177 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 4
1 CONCLUSION
2 Thomson Reuters respectfully requests that the Court issue an order authorizing the
3 materials described in Table 1 above to remain under seal.
4
5 Dated: March 20, 2023 PERKINS COIE LLP
6
7 By: /s/ Anna Mouw Thompson
Anna Mouw Thompson
8
AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
9
Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
10 Corporation
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL INFORMATION RE REPLY TO MOTION
TO EXCLUDE DR. LLOYD’S TESTIMONY
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.177.0.pdf
- Size
- 142,850 bytes
- SHA-256
- d2bcdaabc77c45302925348fb48ef45955e297dc2f3f7caeb34358cfee0238ca
- Original
- PACER (login required)