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 PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO FILE MATERIALS 14 CMC FABRICATORS, INC. dba CMC UNDER SEAL REBAR, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 290, 295, and 298] 16 17 Before the Court are two motions (ECF Nos. 290, 298) filed by Plaintiff Pacific Steel 18 Group (“Plaintiff”), seeking to file under seal certain documents in connection with 19 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Late Disclosure of Paul Lawrence (“Motion to 20 Strike”). (ECF No. 292).1 Defendants CMC Steel Fabricators, Inc. dba CMC Rebar, CMC 21 Steel US, LLC, and CMC Rebar West (“Defendants”) joined in part, in certain aspects of 22 both of Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal. (ECF Nos. 295, 303.) Additionally, Defendants seek 23 24 25 26 1 The Motion to Seal docketed at ECF No. 290 will be referred to as “Plaintiff’s First 27 Motion to Seal.” The Motion to Seal docketed at ECF No. 298 will be referred to as “Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal.” These two motions will be referred to collectively as 28 1 leave to file under seal, portions of materials attached to their Opposition to Plaintiff’s 2 Motion to Strike the Disclosure of Paul Lawrence. (ECF. No 295.) 3 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 290, 298) are 4 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.2 Defendants’ Requests to Seal, contained 5 within their Joinder to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 6 IN PART (ECF No. 295). 7 I. ANALYSIS 8 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 9 presumption of public access. See Nia v. Bank of Am., No. 21-cv-1799-BAS-BGS, 10 2024 WL 171659, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan.12, 2024); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 11 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The showing required to meet this burden 12 depends on whether the materials to be sealed are “more than tangentially related to the 13 merits,” in which case the “compelling reasons” standard applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 14 809 F.3d at 1096-98. When the materials involved do not surpass the tangential relevance 15 threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. In Center for Auto Safety, the Ninth 16 Circuit held that sealed materials attached to a discovery motion are unrelated to the merits 17 of the case, making application of the “good cause” standard appropriate. Id. at 1097. 18 Therefore, the parties’ requests to file under seal the designated materials for the purpose 19 of this Motion for Sanctions, a discovery motion, are reviewed for good cause. Id.; see 20 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). However, “neither the parties' agreement that documents shall 21 be filed under seal, nor a party designating documents as confidential, is sufficient to meet 22 the good cause standard.” Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 23 // 24 25 26 2 To the extent any motion is granted, the documents are ordered sealed, not “permanently” 27 sealed as requested by the parties. Specifically, the decision with respect to the sealing of material in the context of the pending Motion to Strike will not necessarily apply to any 28 1 A. Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (ECF No. 290) 2 Because Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal is filed only to protect the interests of 3 Defendants, the Court will only address those materials in Plaintiff’s motions to seal for 4 which Defendants advance arguments in support of sealing. 5 Defendants advance arguments in support of filing under seal the following 6 materials filed as part of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. The exhibits listed are exhibits to the 7 Declaration of Hilary Krase (ECF No. 292-1) filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to 8 Strike. 9 Ex. Description Category of CMC Rebar Redacted in Part or Protected Information Sealed in Entirety 10 6 Excerpts of June 11, CMC Rebar F&I Financial Sealed at ECF No. 11 2024, Deposition of Information 292-7 at 4, line 14 Chris Stowers (ECF [Deposition page 12 No. 292-7 at 4:14) 131:14] 13 N/A Plaintiff’s Motion to CMC Rebar F&I Financial Sealed at ECF No. 292 Strike (ECF No. 292 at Information at 11, fn 4 line 26 14 11, portion of fn 4) (from sentence with 15 same dollar figure as above in Exhibit 6] 16 17 (ECF No. 295 at 5.) 18 Defendants contend that one sentence of information in deposition testimony 19 attached as Exhibit 6 constitutes confidential and competitively sensitive F&I financial and 20 strategic information for which there are compelling reasons to seal. (ECF No. 295 at 3.) 21 Defendants also seek to redact and have filed under seal this same information contained 22 in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike brief. (ECF No. 292 at 11, fn 4.) Defendants note that the 23 same information was identified and sealed in Defendants’ prior sealing motion and is 24 “narrowly tailored.” (ECF No. 295 at 4.) 25 Having reviewed and evaluated this testimony, the Court finds that Defendants have 26 demonstrated good cause for sealing portions of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and 27 accompanying Exhibit 6. Thus, Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part as 28 1 to these materials. All other requests for sealing contained within Plaintiff’s First Motion 2 to Seal are DENIED. 3 B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (ECF No. 298) 4 Because Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal is filed only to protect the interests of 5 Defendants, the Court will only address those materials in Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal for 6 which Defendants advance arguments in support of sealing. Defendants advance 7 arguments to seal all the documents encompassed in Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal as 8 set forth below. The exhibits listed are exhibits to the Declaration of Hilary Krause in 9 Support of the Reply. (ECF No. 300-1.) 10 Ex. Description Category of CMC Rebar Redacted in Part or Protected Information Sealed in Entirety 11 1 Financial Spreadsheet CMC Rebar Profit & Loss Sealed in Entirety 12 Bates number Statements that are CMC_REBAR_000004 competitively sensitive 13 5079 (ECR No. 300-2) financial information 14 N/A Pacific Steel’s Reply References to CMC Rebar ECF No. 300 (as filed) Profit & Loss Statements page 2, lines 19-20 15 that are competitively after “represented that” 16 sensitive financial to end of sentence; information page 3, lines 10-12 17 after “weeks ago that” 18 to end of quote; page 3, lines 27-28, fn 1 after 19 “he discussed” to end 20 of sentence; page 5, line 3 after “position 21 that” to end of 22 sentence; page 5, line 4 after “fact, they” to end 23 of sentence; page 5, 24 line 7 after “statements that” to end of 25 sentence. 26 27 Defendants contend that information in Exhibit 1 constitutes competitively sensitive, 28 highly detailed, and non-public financial information for which there are compelling 1 reasons to seal. (ECF No. 303 at 2.) Specifically, the Profit & Loss Statements include 2 information about Defendant CMC Rebar’s monthly and annual revenue, costs, tons 3 shipped, and profit margins across multiple years. (Id. at 3.) Defendants argue disclosure 4 of this information would permit competitors and customers to use it to unfairly compete 5 against or negotiate with CMC Rebar in the highly competitive California and Western 6 Region F&I market. (Id.) Defendants note that the same information was sealed in prior 7 motions and that the requests are “narrowly tailored.” (Id.) 8 Having reviewed and evaluated these materials, the Court finds that Defendants have 9 demonstrated good cause for sealing portions of Plaintiff’s reply brief and accompanying 10 Exhibit 1. Thus, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 11 C. Defendant’s Notice of Partial Joinder in [Plaintiff’s] Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal and Motion for Leave to File 12 Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 295.) 13 14 Rather than file a separate motion, within their Notice of Joinder Defendants 15 requested leave to file under seal: (1) portions of materials attached to their Opposition to 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Disclosure of Paul Lawrence and (2) information contained 17 within their brief designated by Plaintiff as “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential – 18 Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” by 19 Plaintiff. (ECF No. 295.) 20 Ex. Description Category of CMC Rebar Sealing Request Protected Information 21 1 Excerpts of Apr. 12, CMC and CMC Rebar F&I Redacted at 87:16- 22 2023, Deposition of P. Financial Information 88:7; 98:13-17 Lawrence 23 2. Excerpts of Apr. 24, N/A Sealed in entirety 24 2023, Deposition of D. Perkins 25 5 CMC_0000109710 and CMC and CMC Rebar F&I Sealed in entirety 26 attachment Financial Information CMC_0000109711 27 28 1 7 Excerpts of June 13, 2024, Deposition of D. 2 Stricklen 3 16 Nov. 26, 2025, Ltr N/A Sealed in entirety from S. Lahlou to C. 4 Wheeler 5 N/A Portions of CMC N/A Redacted at 2:1- 2:10; Rebar’s Opposition 6:11-13 6 7 Defendants advance arguments in support of filing their Opposition and Exhibits 1 8 and 5 under seal. Regarding Exhibit 1, Defendants contend that the small amount of Paul 9 Lawrence’s deposition testimony it requests to seal in Exhibit 1 “seeks to detail CMC and 10 CMC Rebar’s internal pricing formulas.” (ECF No. 295 at 3.) Defendants proffer that the 11 same information or similar information was sealed in prior motions and that the requests 12 are “narrowly tailored.” (Id. at 4.) And Defendants describe Exhibit 5 as “an internal CMC 13 business document containing information including EBITDA breakdowns by specific 14 business line and region, capital spending data, detailed shipping information, and analyses 15 of each business line in each region.” (ECF No. 295 at 3.) Defendants note that Exhibit 5 16 includes an “overwhelming amount” of these categories of information making redactions 17 not feasible. (Id. at 5.) Thus, Defendants seek to seal Exhibit 5 in its entirety. (Id.) 18 Having reviewed and evaluated these materials, the Court finds that Defendants have 19 demonstrated good cause for sealing portions of their Opposition and its accompanying 20 Exhibits 1 and 5. Thus, with respect to these materials, the Court GRANTS the request. 21 As to Exhibits 2 and 16, Defendants have sought to seal these two documents simply 22 because Plaintiff has designated that as “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 23 Eyes Only,” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” by Plaintiff. (ECF 24 No. 295.) This is not sufficient to justify sealing, and Plaintiff has not presented this Court 25 with any arguments in support of sealing Exhibits 2 and 16. Accordingly, the Court 26 DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ request to file these exhibits under seal. 27 28 1 As to Exhibit 7, no argument has been presented as to why this document should be 2 filed under seal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to file this exhibit 3 under seal. 4 II. CONCLUSION 5 In accordance with the foregoing the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. With respect to Plaintiff’s first motion, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 7 DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal. The Clerk of Court 8 shall file under seal the following documents: ECF Nos. 291 and 291-4 9 (Ex. 6.) Plaintiff shall file unredacted versions of the following documents on 10 the public docket by May 5, 2026: ECF Nos. 291-1 (Ex 1), 291-2 (Ex. 2), 11 291-3 (Ex 5), 291-5 (Ex. 7), and 291-6 (Ex. 9). 12 2. With respect to Plaintiff’s second motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 13 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. (ECF No. 298.) The Clerk of Court 14 shall file under seal the following documents: ECF Nos. 299 and 299-1 15 (Ex. 1). 16 3. With respect to Defendants’ request to seal, the Court GRANTS IN PART 17 and DENIES IN PART without prejudice Defendants’ request. (ECF No. 18 295.) The Clerk of Court shall file under sealing the following documents: 19 ECF Nos. 296, 296-1 (Ex. 1) and 296-3 (Ex 5). Plaintiff has until 20 May 5, 2026, to demonstrate that Exhibits 2 (ECF. No. 296-2) and 16 (ECF 21 No. 296-5) should be filed under seal. If Plaintiff chooses not to provide the 22 Court with the necessary showing of good cause, then unredacted versions of 23 the documents must be filed on the public docket by May 5, 2026. Defendants 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// l shall file an unredacted version of the following document on the public 2 docket by May 5, 2026: ECF. No. 296-4 (Ex. 7). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 28, 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