Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-01892
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Baird v. BlackRock, Judge Gilliam denied defendants’ relief motion and granted in part and denied in part their motion to seal.
The defendants were required to comply with the magistrate judge’s document-production order and to publicly file materials for which sealing was denied. Exhibits 1 through 9 remained under seal, affecting public access to those materials.
What happened
In Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., the defendants challenged a magistrate judge’s order requiring them to produce fifteen documents they said should be withheld or redacted as privileged. They also asked to seal exhibits and parts of their motion because they contained confidential business, financial, and client information.
The court reviewed the challenge under a deferential standard, asking whether the magistrate judge’s order was clearly wrong or contrary to law. For the sealing request, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the documents were attached to a nondispositive pretrial motion. The defendants had to show specific harm from disclosure, not just generally describe the information as confidential.
The court denied the defendants’ request for relief from the magistrate judge’s order. It granted in part and denied in part the request to seal: Exhibits 1 through 9 could remain sealed, but five lines in the motion could not. Judge Gilliam directed the defendants to file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within seven days, while allowing new sealing motions that met the stated requirements.
The detailed version
- Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. · No. 4:17-cv-01892
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 16, 2019
Background
The defendants filed objections to Magistrate Judge Westmore’s September 24, 2019 pretrial order. The district court treated those objections as a motion for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order. The challenged order compelled the defendants to produce fifteen documents. The defendants argued that they should be permitted to withhold or redact the documents based on privilege.
The defendants also filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibits 1 through 9 to the declaration of Randall Edwards and five lines of their motion for relief. They said the exhibits contained confidential information about BlackRock’s internal business processes, finances, and client relationships, and that the five lines referred to or characterized information in those exhibits.
Standards
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and Civil Local Rule 72-2, a district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial ruling when the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The district court reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. The court described this review as highly deferential.
For sealing, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), rather than the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard. That lower standard applied because the materials were attached to a nondispositive motion. Good cause required a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm; broad, unsupported allegations were insufficient.
Analysis
After reviewing the defendants’ objections and Judge Westmore’s order, the court found that the defendants had not shown that the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion for relief.
The court found good cause to seal Exhibits 1 through 9. It concluded that those exhibits contained confidential business and financial information concerning BlackRock’s operations and its relationship with clients. The court did not find an adequate basis to seal the five lines in the motion for relief. The defendants’ general descriptions and characterizations of the exhibits did not make the required particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion for relief from the nondispositive pretrial order. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal. The defendants were directed to file public versions of documents for which sealing had been denied within seven days. The court also stated that the defendants could file new sealing motions within seven days that complied with the requirements discussed in the order. Documents covered by the granted portion of the sealing motion would remain under seal. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.