Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00892-L-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO FILE MATERIALS 14 CMC FABRICATORS, INC. dba CMC UNDER SEAL REBAR, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 255, 262, 267] 16 17 Before the Court are two motions (ECF Nos. 255, 267) filed by Plaintiff Pacific Steel 18 Group (“Plaintiff”), seeking to file under seal certain documents in connection with 19 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 257).1 Defendants CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. 20 dba CMC Rebar, CMC Steel US, LLC, and CMC Rebar West (“Defendants”) join, in part, 21 in Plaintiff’s two motions to seal. (ECF Nos. 262, 275.) Also before the Court is a motion 22 filed by Defendants seeking to permanently seal certain information in connection with 23 24 25 26 1 The Motion to Seal docketed at ECF No. 255 will be referred to as “Plaintiff’s First 27 Motion to Seal.” The Motion to Seal docketed at ECF No. 267 will be referred to as “Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal.” These two motions will be referred to collectively as 28 1 their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 262.) For the reasons set 2 forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 255, 267) are GRANTED in part and 3 DENIED in part. Defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 262) is GRANTED. 4 I. NOMENCLATURE USED BY THE PARTIES 5 Pursuant to its obligations under the August 24, 2023 Protective Order, Plaintiff 6 moves to seal certain materials that Defendants produced in discovery and designated as 7 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 8 that Plaintiff includes in its Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff has no dog in the fight and 9 therefore takes no position on the propriety of sealing these materials. (ECF No. 255 at 2; 10 267 at 2.) Plaintiff sets forth no argument in support of sealing. (Id.) Presumably because 11 Plaintiff appropriately filed the documents under seal on CM/ECF pending a ruling on its 12 motions to seal, Plaintiff refers to its request as a motion to “provisionally” seal the 13 documents. Defendants, whose purportedly sensitive or confidential information is at 14 issue, offers substantive arguments in support of granting the Motions to Seal, and refers 15 to their position as a request to “permanently” seal the documents. The Court does not 16 adopt this nomenclature. To the extent the motion is granted, the documents are ordered 17 sealed, not “permanently” sealed. Specifically, the decision with respect to the sealing of 18 material in the context of the pending motion for sanctions will not necessarily apply to 19 any future request to file the same material under seal in another context. 20 II. ANALYSIS 21 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 22 presumption of public access. See Nia v. Bank of Am., No. 21-cv-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 23 WL 171659, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan.12, 2024); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 24 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The showing required to meet this burden depends 25 on whether the materials to be sealed are “more than tangentially related to the merits,” in 26 27 2 The motion to seal docketed at ECF No. 262 will be referred to as “Defendant’s 28 1 which case the “compelling reasons” standard applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 2 at 1096-98. When the materials involved do not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, 3 the “good cause” standard applies. Id. In Center for Auto Safety, the Ninth Circuit held 4 that when sealed materials are attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the 5 case, application of the “good cause” standard is appropriate. Id. at 1097. Therefore, the 6 parties’ requests to file under seal the designated materials for the purpose of this Motion 7 for Sanctions, a discovery motion, are reviewed for good cause. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 26(c). 9 A. Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (ECF No. 255) 10 Because Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal are filed only to protect the interests of 11 Defendants, the Court will only address those materials in Plaintiff’s motions to seal for 12 which Defendants advance arguments in support of sealing. 13 Defendants advance arguments in support of filing under seal the following 14 materials filed as part of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. The exhibits listed (ECF Nos. 15 257-2, 257-3) are exhibits to the Declaration of Tim Horgan-Kobelski (ECF No. 257-1) 16 filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. 17 Ex. Description Category of CMC Rebar Redacted in Part or Protected Information Sealed in Entirety 18 1 Litigation Hold Notice CMC Rebar Sealed in Entirety 19 and Litigation Hold, Privileged CMC_REBAR_000015 Information 20 055 (ECF No. 257-2) 21 2 Excerpts of Aug. 15, CMC Rebar Redacted at 49:25- 2025 Privileged 50:5; 57:25-58:25; 22 Deposition of Christy Information; 150:24-151:15 23 Higginbotham (ECF details of No. 257-3) litigation hold 24 N/A Plaintiff’s Motion for CMC Rebar Privileged Redacted at 4:3-9, 25 Sanctions (ECF No. Information; details of 15:26-16:1, 20:18-21 257) litigation hold 26 27 (ECF No. 262 at 2-4.) 28 1 With respect to the Motion for Sanctions, Defendants contend that information in 2 Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Tim Horgan-Kobelski in Support of the Motion for 3 Sanctions are privileged attorney-client communications that are “traditionally kept secret” 4 and should be sealed on this basis. (Id. at 2.) 5 Having reviewed and evaluated these materials, the Court finds that Defendants have 6 demonstrated good cause for sealing, and Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal is GRANTED in 7 part as to these materials. All other requests for sealing in Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal 8 are DENIED. 9 B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (ECF No. 267) 10 Because Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal are filed only to protect the interests of 11 Defendants, the Court will only address those materials in Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal for 12 which Defendants advance arguments in support of sealing. 13 Defendants advance arguments in support of filing under seal the following 14 materials filed as part of Plaintiff’s Reply in support of its Motion for Sanctions. (ECF No. 15 275.) The exhibits listed (ECF Nos. 269-11, 269-12) are exhibits to the Declaration of Tim 16 Horgan-Kobelski. (ECF No. 269-1) 17 Ex. Description Category of CMC Rebar Redacted in Part or Protected Information Sealed in Entirety 18 10 Text messages between CMC Rebar F&I Cost and Redacted from 19 M. Galvan and B. Strategic Bid Information 10:08:52 message Folsom beginning with ECF 81-1 ¶¶ 2-4 through 13:20:19 20 Bates number message (ECF No. 21 CMC_REBAR_000014 275) 8438 (ECF No. 269-11) 22 11 Chat between CMC CMC Rebar F&I Cost and Redacted at Bates 23 Rebar personnel Strategic Bid Information number beginning with Bates ECF 81-1 ¶¶ 2-4 CMC_REBAR_00001 24 number 48442 from “We had” 25 CMC_REBAR_000014 through “for 8441(ECF No. 269-12) Fabrication costs.” 26 ECF No. 275) 27 28 1 N/A Plaintiff’s reply in CMC Rebar F&I Cost and Redacted at 6 n.9 from support of its Motion Strategic Bid Information “We had” through 2 for Sanctions (ECF No. ECF 81-1 ¶¶ 2-4 “certain jobs.” (ECF 3 269) No. 275) 4 5 Defendants contend that information in Exhibits 10 and 11 of the reply declaration 6 of Tim Horgan-Kobelski constitutes competitively sensitive financial and cost information 7 for which there are compelling reasons for sealing. (ECF No. 275 at 2.) Defendants note 8 that the same information was sealed in prior motions and that the requests are “narrowly 9 tailored.” (Id. at 3.) 10 Having reviewed and evaluated these materials, the Court finds that Defendants have 11 demonstrated good cause for sealing, and Plaintiffs Second Motion to Seal is GRANTED 12 in part, as to these materials. All other requests for sealing in Plaintiff’s Second Motion 13 to Seal are DENIED. 14 C. Defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF 262) 15 In addition to joining Plaintiff’s motions to seal, Defendants move to redact portions 16 of an exhibit attached to their Opposition, namely excerpts from the deposition transcript 17 of Christy Higginbotham. (ECF. No. 262 at 3-4.) The deposition transcript is attached as 18 Exhibit 2 (ECF No. 261-1 at 52-227), to the declaration of Andrew Figueiredo in support 19 of Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 261-1): 49:25-50:5; 20 57:25-58:25; 150:24-151:15. (ECF No. 262 at 2-3.) 21 Having reviewed and evaluated these materials, and for the reasons set forth in 22 section A. above, the Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause for 23 redacting the requested excerpts, and Defendants’ Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS 25 The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the following unredacted documents: ECF 26 Nos. 256, 257-2 (Exhibit 1), 257-3 (Exhibit 2), 263, 268, 269-11 (Exhibit 10), 269-12 27 (Exhibit 11). Plaintiff is ordered to prepare amended versions of the following documents 28 / / / 1 || with redactions consistent with this order and file the amended versions on the docket by 2 || April 30, 2026: ECF Nos. 257, 257-3, 269, 269-11, and 269-12. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: April 15, 2026 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 6 ited States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28