Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Brewing Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC (2024-12-30) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered motions to file certain declarations and exhibits under seal and a plaintiff's ex parte motion. The court granted the motions to seal the proprietary business information and denied the remaining relief requested in the ex parte motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting motions to file certain declarations and exhibits under seal“Accordingly, the motions to seal are GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the Ninth Circuit standard from Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, finding that the documents contained trade secrets and proprietary business information that justified sealing to protect the business from harm. This is a standard application of the law in the Ninth Circuit for sealing commercial data. |
Denying remaining relief requested in Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion“The remaining relief requested but not addressed in the Minute Order is DENIED.” | unsure The order states that the court addressed some relief in a separate Minute Order (ECF No. 410) and denied the rest. Without the text of the Minute Order or the specific relief requested in the Ex Parte Motion, it is impossible to determine if the denial was legally correct. The order provides no reasoning for the denial of the remaining relief. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is sound regarding the sealing of documents, as it correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana) and applies it to the facts (trade secrets/proprietary data). However, it is a 'sound with gaps' order overall because it denies the remaining relief in the Ex Parte Motion without providing any reasoning or citing any authority, merely referencing a separate Minute Order. A reader of this order alone cannot evaluate the correctness of that denial.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STONE BREWING CO., LLC, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00331-BEN-JMA 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE CERTAIN DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS 14 MOLSON COORS BREWING CO., UNDER SEAL AND DENYING AS MILLERCOORS LLC, and DOES 1 15 MOOT PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE through 25, inclusive, MOTION 16 Defendants. 17 [ECF Nos. 378, 381, 386, 389, 392, 395, and 401] 18 19 Concurrent with the Parties’ briefing on their respective Motions in Limine, the 20 Parties moved to file under seal certain portions of their briefs, declarations, and 21 supporting exhibits. 22 The portions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits sought to be sealed contain, 23 reference, or discuss commercially sensitive and proprietary business data. These 24 documents have been previously designated “Confidential,” “Confidential – Attorneys’ 25 Eyes Only,” or “Privileged” pursuant to the Protective Order issued in this case. See ECF 26 No. 54. Specifically, these exhibits contain business information including detailed 27 business strategy and detailed agreements with third parties. 28 1 “(C]ompelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 2 || justify sealing court records exist when such court files might .. . become a vehicle for 3 ||improper purposes, such as the use of records to .. . release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. 4 || City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). A “trade secret may 5 || consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in 6 || one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 7 || competitors who do not know or use it.” The Court can seal proprietary information to 8 || protect a business from potential harm. See Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber 9 || Research International, LLC, No. 15-CV-00595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 6270268, at *2 10 || (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2017) (granting motion to file documents containing proprietary 11 || business information under seal). 12 Accordingly, the motions to seal ace GRANTED. Redacted versions of the 13 || aforementioned documents have been filed on the public docket. The Clerk is directed to 14 || file unredacted versions of the documents and exhibits lodged at Docket Numbers 380, 15 || 382, 388, 390, 394, and 396 under seal. The Court has addressed the relief requested in 16 || Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 401). See Minute Order, ECF No. 410. The 17 ||remaining relief requested but not addressed in the Minute Order is DENIED. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 DATED: October 29, 2020 on. Roger T. Benitez 21 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28