Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC

Background

Some defendants, called the “Moving Defendants,” asked to transfer Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.’s case to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Continental opposed that request and separately asked to seal parts of its opposition and attached materials.

The sealing request covered five categories of materials: Continental’s opposition; the declaration of Jennifer Wahnschaff; Exhibit 38 to the declaration of Lai L. Yip; Exhibit 59 to that declaration; and Exhibit 73 to that declaration.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, a party must show “compelling reasons” to overcome that presumption. A lower “good cause” standard applies to materials only tangentially related to the claims, such as some discovery-related filings.

The court rejected Continental’s argument that the lower standard applied simply because the transfer motion was not dispositive. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that the relevant question was whether the transfer motion was more than tangentially related to the underlying dispute. It concluded that it was. A transfer motion requires consideration of personal jurisdiction, which implicates due-process rights, and the specific-jurisdiction analysis can require examination of whether the claims arise from defendants’ forum-related conduct.

Analysis

The court found that Continental justified sealing the specified portions of its opposition, the Wahnschaff Declaration, and Exhibit 73. The materials included the number of customers using Continental’s products, certain customer names, and CBRE’s proprietary work product. The court concluded that disclosure could harm competitive standing or give competitors an unfair advantage.

Continental also sought to seal portions of Exhibit 38 because the Nokia Defendants had designated them confidential, and portions of Exhibit 59 because non-party BlackBerry had done so. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), those designating parties had to provide declarations establishing that the information was sealable. The Nokia Defendants and BlackBerry did not file the required declarations.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Continental’s administrative motion to file under seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of the opposition, the Wahnschaff Declaration, and Exhibit 73 to the Yip Declaration. It denied without prejudice the request as to Exhibits 38 and 59.

The court ordered Continental to meet and confer with the Nokia Defendants and BlackBerry about whether, and to what extent, those exhibits should remain sealed. If sealing was still requested, Continental was ordered to file a joint renewed administrative motion by December 11, 2019, including supporting declarations from the Nokia Defendants and BlackBerry. This order did not decide the underlying motion to transfer.