1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Case No. 20-cv-07683-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

9 v. SEAL ANOTHER PARTY’S

MATERIAL

10 COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 308, 314, 334, 339 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court are four motions to consider whether another party’s materials should be 14 sealed. This includes two motions filed by Plaintiff Pacific Steel Group (“Plaintiff”), Dkt. Nos. 15 308 and 334, and two motions filed by Defendants Commercial Metals Company, CMC Rebar 16 West, and CMC Steel, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), Dkt. Nos. 314 and 339. The Court 17 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 21 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 22 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 23 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 24 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 25 strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 26 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 27 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 1 sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard of confidential and proprietary business 2 information when public disclosure of such information “could result in improper use by business 3 competitors.” See Hyams v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18-CV-06278-HSG, 2023 WL 2960009, at *2 4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023). 5 When a party seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another 6 party or non-party, the party filing the sealing motion need not satisfy the showing described 7 above. See Civ. L-R 79-5(f)(1). Instead, within seven days of the motion’s filing, the designating 8 party must file a statement or declaration justifying the reasons for keeping the document or 9 information under seal. Id. 79-5(f)(3). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the 10 unsealing of the provisionally sealed material without further notice to the designating party. Id. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314 13 Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314 pertain to materials filed in connection with the parties’ motions in 14 limine. 15 Dkt. No. 308, Plaintiff’s motion, seeks to file under seal certain documents designated 16 confidential by Defendant and non-parties SMS Group, Inc. (“SMS”), and Danieli Corporation 17 (“Danieli”). See Dkt. No. 308 at 3–4. 18 Dkt. No. 314, Defendants’ motion to seal, seeks to file under seal certain documents 19 designated confidential by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 314 at 2. 20 Danieli timely filed a response to Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ motions. See Dkt. No. 323. 21 SMS also timely filed responses to both motions. See Dkt. Nos. 341 (SMS Statement in Response 22 to Defendants’ Motion), 342 (SMS Statement in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion). Defendants did 23 not respond to Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion. 24 Danieli requests that the three of the four documents identified by Plaintiff and Defendants 25 be redacted because they contain Danieli’s nonpublic, commercially sensitive information, 26 including confidential contract terms and negotiations, technical steel mill specifications and 27 operations, and business strategy. See Dkt. No. 323 at 4. SMS requests that all of the materials 1 information, including preliminary contract negotiations. Dkt. No. 342 at 3. 2 The Court finds that the documents and information Danieli and SMS seek to seal contain 3 the companies’ commercially sensitive and confidential business information that satisfies the 4 compelling reasons standard and outweighs the public’s interest in viewing the documents. See 5 Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Tr., N.A., 403 F.Supp.3d 765, 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019) 6 (“[C]onfidential business information in the form of license agreements, financial terms, details of 7 confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies satisfies the compelling reasons 8 standard.”). The disclosure of this non-public business information “could reasonably place 9 [Danieli and SMS] at a competitive disadvantage if disclosed.” See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 10 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that 11 sealing confidential business information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the 12 parties’ business model and strategy”); see also Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345- 13 BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (sealing “confidential product and 14 business information which is not intended for public disclosure”). Further, neither of these third 15 parties voluntarily put this information at issue in this litigation. See United States v. Bazaarvoice, 16 Inc., No. 13-CV-00133-WHO, 2014 WL 11297188, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014). 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 308 and 314 as to the materials identified by 18 Danieli and SMS. The Court DENIES the remainder of the motions to seal, as no other party 19 filed a declaration or response presenting a basis for sealing any other documents or information. 20 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3) (“A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of 21 the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the Designating Party.”). 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 B. Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 2 Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 pertain to materials filed in connection with the parties’ oppositions 3 to each other’s motions in limine. 4 Dkt. No. 334, Plaintiff’s motion to seal, again seeks to file under seal certain documents or 5 information designated confidential by Defendant, SMS, and Danieli. See Dkt. No. 308 at 3–4. 6 Danieli timely filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. See Dkt. No. 347. Danieli argues it 7 has compelling reasons to seal or redact two of the three documents Plaintiff identified. See id. at 8 2. Danieli asserts that these documents similarly contain nonpublic, commercially sensitive 9 information, including confidential contract terms and negotiations, technical steel mill 10 specifications and operations, and business strategy. See id. at 4. Neither SMS nor Defendants 11 responded to Plaintiff’s motion. 12 Dkt. No. 339, Defendants’ motion to seal, seeks to file under seal certain documents 13 designated confidential by Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 339 at 2. 14 SMS filed a timely response to Defendants’ motion. See Dkt. No. 348. Again, SMS 15 argues that one of the designated documents includes SMS’s confidential preliminary contract 16 negotiations. Id. at 3. No other party or non-party responded to Defendants’ motion. 17 The Court similarly finds that the documents and information Danieli and SMS seek to 18 seal related to Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 should be sealed, for the same reasons as stated above. The 19 materials Danieli and SMS identify contain the companies’ commercially sensitive and 20 confidential business information that satisfies the compelling reasons standard and outweighs the 21 public’s interest in viewing the documents. 22 The Court therefore GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 334 and 339 as to the materials specified by 23 Danieli and SMS. The Court DENIES the remainder of the motions to seal because no other 24 party filed a declaration or response to the motions requesting to seal or redact any other materials. 25 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ requests to determine 1 GRANTED as to the materials specified by non-parties Danieli and SMS in Dkt. Nos. 323, 341, 2 342, 347, and 348, and DENIED otherwise. 3 The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the 4 || proposed sealing has been denied within ten days from the date of this order. Each party is 5 || responsible for submitting these conforming versions of any document that it originally filed 6 || unless the parties mutually agree on a different allocation of this work. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 3/10/2025 9 . ° Aap S. GILLIAM, JR. if 10 United States District Judge 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28