Tunick v. Takara Sake USA Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Colby Tunick filed two administrative motions asking the court to seal or redact materials submitted with his motion for class certification. The first motion, ECF No. 56, concerned materials designated confidential by Defendant Takara Sake USA Inc. and by third parties Circana, LLC and Albertsons. The second motion, ECF No. 71, concerned portions of Tunick’s reply supporting class certification that contained information designated confidential by Circana.

The court explained that judicial records generally are presumed accessible to the public. Because the materials related to class certification, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process.

Rulings on ECF No. 56

The court granted the motion as to Exhibits 4, 8, 9, and 10 to the Nassir Declaration and as to Tunick’s redactions to the Boyd Declaration because those redactions directly referenced the exhibits. The court ordered the four exhibits sealed. It did not seal quotations from those exhibits in Tunick’s supporting memorandum and ordered Tunick to file that memorandum publicly no sooner than five days and no later than 10 days after the order.

The court granted the motion to seal Exhibit 14 in its entirety. Exhibit 14 contained detailed third-party sales data produced by Circana. Circana submitted evidence that it licenses specialized data to customers, that the report was custom-produced for Tunick’s counsel, and that public disclosure could cause competitive and financial harm. The court found compelling reasons to seal the exhibit and found the request narrowly tailored and unopposed.

The court denied the motion as to Exhibit 15, which contained sales data previously designated confidential by Albertsons. Albertsons received notice but did not submit the required statement or declaration justifying sealing. Because Exhibit 15 had been lodged in its native format, the court did not order Tunick to file it publicly. The exhibit remained with the Clerk’s Office and was not under seal.

Ruling on ECF No. 71

The court denied the motion to redact portions of Tunick’s reply. Circana had received notice of the motion but did not submit a statement or declaration justifying sealing within the required seven days.

Disposition

The court ordered that Tunick’s sealing motion at ECF No. 56 was granted in part and denied in part. The court denied Tunick’s sealing motion at ECF No. 71.