Statement re 239 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 244)

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 244     Filed 09/05/24    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
      Attorneys for Defendant                           Telephone: 214.965.7700
 9    Thomson Reuters Corporation                       Facsimile: 214.965.7799
10
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
                                         SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13

14
     CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                         Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
15
     SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
16   all others similarly situated,                 DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS’
                                                    STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO
17                         Plaintiffs,              PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                    MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
18          v.                                      ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIALS
                                                    SHOULD BE SEALED
19   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
20                         Defendant.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                          THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 244         Filed 09/05/24       Page 2 of 4



 1          Thomson Reuters submits this Statement pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 and

 2   in response to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Materials

 3   Should be Sealed (“Motion”). Dkt. 239. Through this Statement, Thomson Reuters seeks an order

 4   to file under seal the materials originally designated in Plaintiffs’ Motion (the “Designated

 5   Materials”). This Statement and its exhibits are supported by the Declaration of Kevin Appold

 6   (“Appold Decl.”), filed concurrently.

 7                                           LEGAL STANDARD

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

 9   records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

10   2006) (citation omitted). The legal standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed

11   depends on whether the document is attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion.

12   See id. at 1179–80. Documents attached to dispositive motions may be sealed only when the

13   proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. at 1179. But documents attached to

14   non-dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially may be sealed upon a lesser

15   showing of good cause. Id. at 1180; see also In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-

16   02509, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (noting that the “vast majority” of

17   the courts within this district generally treat class certification motions as non-dispositive). Since

18   both standards are met here, this Statement addresses the more demanding “compelling reasons”

19   standard.

20          What reasons are sufficiently compelling to justify sealing documents is generally “left to

21   the sound discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

22   1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Commonly accepted examples of sealable materials, however, are “business

23   information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

24   435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), and “confidential financial information,” Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser

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

26   Materials that Thomson Reuters seeks to seal fall into these categories.

27   //

28   //
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                      -1-       THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 244        Filed 09/05/24     Page 3 of 4



 1                                             ARGUMENT

 2          Thomson Reuters seeks to redact two brief discussions of confidential, non-public

 3   information that are similar to—and in one case, materially identical to—information the Court

 4   has already sealed: a detailed description of CLEAR’s capabilities regarding particular content

 5   and Plaintiffs’ expert’s estimate regarding Thomson Reuters’ profit attributable to CLEAR’s

 6   availability in California. See, e.g., Doc. 178 (sealing a detailed description of CLEAR’s

 7   capabilities that is not otherwise available to the public or Thomson Reuters competitors); Doc.

 8   179 (sealing Plaintiffs’ expert’s estimates derived from Thomson Reuters’ confidential and non-

 9   public financial information).

10          There are compelling reasons to seal the detailed description of CLEAR’s capabilities

11   regarding particular content because this information (about what CLEAR is not intended or

12   designed to do) is not available to the public, and public disclosure of this information would

13   harm Thomson Reuters by allowing CLEAR competitors to leverage that detailed information for

14   their own competitive purposes. See Appold Decl. ¶ 2; Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (holding that

15   “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” should be sealed). In

16   addition, the information could be taken out of context to give a misleading or inaccurate picture

17   of CLEAR and related business practices. See Adtrader, Inc. v. Google, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF,

18   2020 WL 6389186, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) (sealing portions of documents that present

19   “information without context [because it could] harm Google by providing an incomplete and

20   misleading picture of its crediting practices and capabilities”); Aleksandr Urakhchin v. Allianz

21   Asset Mgmt. of Am., No. 15-cv-1614, 2017 WL 11643350, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017)

22   (sealing portions of emails that competitors could present “to the marketplace out-of-context and

23   place the investment option in a negative light”).

24          For the same reasons, the Court should seal Plaintiffs’ expert’s estimate regarding

25   Thomson Reuters’ profit attributable to CLEAR’s availability in California, as it did in the

26   Daubert briefing regarding that opinion. See Appold Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Doc. 179 (granting Thomson

27   Reuters’ motion to seal this information in its motion to exclude Finance Scholars Group’s

28   opinions); Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *2
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -2-      THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 244         Filed 09/05/24      Page 4 of 4



 1   (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022) (collecting cases and noting that when it comes to “confidential

 2   financial information . . . [c]ourts within the Ninth Circuit commonly grant sealing requests to

 3   protect exactly this type of information”); Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 WL

 4   12400041, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (finding compelling reasons to seal “information about

 5   . . . profits, losses, income, investments, and expenses” where “the public disclosure of this

 6   information could harm these companies if the information was used by its competitors”); Exeltis

 7   USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (finding good cause to seal documents concerning

 8   “Defendant’s financial performance and company strategy” because “public release of these

 9   documents could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or

10   marketing of rival products”); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW,

11   2014 WL 6901744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (finding good cause to seal material with

12   “sensitive financial information”).

13          Rather than requesting that the Court seal entire documents, Thomson Reuters has

14   narrowly tailored this request to redact only the specific information that is likely to harm

15   Thomson Reuters if made readily available to the general public and CLEAR competitors.

16                                             CONCLUSION

17          For the reasons discussed above and in the declaration supporting this Statement,

18   Thomson Reuters respectfully asks the Court to issue an order sealing the Designated Materials.

19

20   Dated: September 5, 2024                         PERKINS COIE LLP

21

22                                                    By: /s/ Hayden Schottlaender
                                                           Hayden Schottlaender
23
                                                           HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
24
                                                      Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
25                                                    Corporation
26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                      -3-      THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.244.0.pdf

Size

176,159 bytes

SHA-256

a0391ba850eff831f8564fa3927272048ef3548364d2b20dd7a5156b15b58a02

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.244.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)