CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc.
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:19-cv-00802
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In CertainTeed Gypsum v. Pacific Coast Building Products, Judge Lucy d Koh granted sealing in part and denied an overbroad request.
The ruling affects the parties’ ability to publicly file the exhibit and portions of the defendants’ reply claim-construction brief, while preserving public access to material beyond the approved narrow redactions.
What happened
In CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc., the defendants asked to seal an exhibit and parts of a brief containing information that CertainTeed had marked highly confidential. CertainTeed did not oppose the request and submitted more narrowly redacted versions.
The court found that the exhibit was an internal report about the effectiveness of CertainTeed’s products. It treated the report as a trade secret because it contained business information that could give CertainTeed an advantage over competitors and could harm its competitive position if disclosed.
The court granted CertainTeed’s narrower request to redact the exhibit, denied the defendants’ request to seal the entire exhibit, and granted the defendants’ request to redact the same limited information from their brief. Judge Lucy d Koh issued the order.
The detailed version
- CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. · No. 5:19-cv-00802
- Nathanael Cousins
- Dec. 13, 2021
Background
The defendants filed an administrative motion to seal portions of their reply claim-construction brief and one supporting exhibit. They said the materials contained information that CertainTeed had designated “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel Only.” CertainTeed did not oppose the motion and provided narrower redactions for the exhibit and brief.
The exhibit was an internal CertainTeed report about the efficacy of its products. The defendants sought to seal the exhibit in its entirety and redact portions of their brief that cited it.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Depending on how closely the materials relate to the merits, a party seeking to seal records may need to show either compelling reasons or good cause. The court noted that the parties and courts had disagreed about which standard applies to claim-construction briefs, but it did not resolve that issue because the request satisfied the more demanding compelling-reasons standard.
Under the federal civil-procedure rule governing protective orders, courts may protect trade secrets and confidential business information. The court said that trade secrets can include compilations of business information that provide an advantage over competitors who do not know or use the information. It also emphasized that sealing may be appropriate when disclosure could harm a litigant’s competitive position. Requests must be narrowly tailored to cover only material that is legally protectable.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that CertainTeed’s internal report was a compilation of information used in its business and therefore fell within the definition of a trade secret. The court also found that disclosure could provide business information that might harm CertainTeed’s competitive standing. These findings supplied compelling reasons to protect the information from public disclosure.
The court nevertheless found the defendants’ request to seal the entire exhibit overbroad because CertainTeed had provided a more narrowly redacted version.
Ruling
The court granted in part the defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal. Specifically, it granted CertainTeed’s narrower redaction request for Exhibit 1 and denied the defendants’ overly broad request to seal Exhibit 1 in its entirety. It also granted the defendants’ request to redact the same limited information from their reply claim-construction brief. Judge Lucy d Koh issued the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.