ESC-Toy Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

Background

The parties filed several administrative motions asking the court to file documents under seal. The filings related to Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC’s motion to disqualify ESC-Toy Ltd.’s former counsel, Maschoff Brennan. Because that motion was non-dispositive—meaning it would not resolve the case—the court said the sealing requests needed to satisfy the “good cause” standard under the applicable local rule and Ninth Circuit precedent.

The court had previously ordered the parties to narrow and clarify their sealing requests. It also addressed an unusual issue involving ESC’s new counsel, Call & Jensen. Under the protective order, ESC’s new counsel might not be allowed to review some of Ms. Gayner’s documents. The court required Sony to identify the portions that should remain sealed because of the protective order or because they contained Sony’s confidential business information about licensing practices and business strategies.

Documents and sealing rulings

The court first determined which documents Call & Jensen could review. It held that some documents had to be withheld because they contained privileged information that Sony’s former counsel improperly shared with ESC’s former counsel, who were later disqualified from the case. The court held that other documents were not affected by that prior disclosure and should be shared with Call & Jensen.

For Sony’s motion to disqualify Maschoff Brennan at Docket No. 315, the court:

- granted sealing for the specified portions at pages 6:1–2, 11:19–20, and 17:11–14; - denied sealing for the other specified portions listed in the order, meaning those documents were to be sent to ESC but otherwise remain sealed from the public; - denied sealing for Docket No. 315, Exhibit 1, pages 32, 34, 35, 39, and 40; - granted sealing for the listed portions of Exhibit 6; - granted sealing for the listed portions of Exhibit 11 at pages 369:23–25 and 370:4–6; and - denied sealing for the other listed portions of Exhibit 11.

The court also identified Docket No. 315, Exhibits 3, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, and 28 as sealed in their entirety. It identified Exhibits 4, 9, 12, and 16 as sealed in their entirety as well. The order granted sealing for the specified portion of ESC’s opposition to the motion to disqualify at Docket No. 320 and for the specified portions of Docket No. 320, Exhibit A.

For the proposed protective order at Docket No. 336, the court denied the sealing request for the document identified as sealed in its entirety. The court separately denied the administrative motions at Docket Nos. 301, 338, and 341. The order disposes of Docket Nos. 301, 315, 320, 336, 338, 341, 376, 377, and 378.

Next steps

For documents the court ordered disclosed to Call & Jensen, the parties had one week after receiving them to meet and confer. They must report in a joint letter which documents, if any, should remain sealed from the public, which should not be sealed, and which documents remain subject to disagreement.