Shansby v. The Edrington Group LTD
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06907
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Shansby v. Edrington, Judge Corley denied Edrington’s sealing motion without prejudice because it was too broad and unsupported.
Edrington, USA, Inc.’s request to keep documents related to its arbitration motion from public view was denied without prejudice; the underlying arbitration motion was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Shansby v. Edrington, Edrington, USA, Inc. asked to seal documents connected to its motion to compel arbitration. The request covered an entire agreement and proposed redactions to the arbitration provision, signatories’ names, and the name of a third-party purchaser.
The court said documents related to the case’s merits are presumed open to the public. A party seeking secrecy must show specific, compelling reasons and narrowly limit any redactions to material legally entitled to protection.
Judge Corley found that Edrington had not provided evidence supporting the proposed sealing. She denied the motion to file under seal without prejudice and allowed Edrington to submit a new motion complying with the local rules by March 3, 2023.
The detailed version
- Shansby v. The Edrington Group LTD · No. 3:22-cv-06907
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 28, 2023
Background
Edrington, USA moved to file certain documents under seal in connection with its motion to compel arbitration. The sealing request sought to keep an agreement secret in its entirety, including the arbitration provision on which Edrington based its motion. Edrington also proposed redacting the names of the agreement’s signatories and the name of a third-party purchaser of Tequila Partida.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records connected to a motion related to the merits of a case are subject to a strong presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, the requesting party must provide specific factual support showing compelling reasons that outweigh the policies favoring disclosure. Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, sealing is appropriate only when the material is privileged, protects a trade secret, or is otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Requests must also be narrowly tailored to the material that can properly be sealed.
Court’s ruling
The court held that Edrington’s administrative motion did not meet these standards. Sealing the entire agreement would conceal from the public the arbitration provision that Edrington relied on in its motion. Edrington offered no evidence that the arbitration provision, the signatories’ names, or the agreement’s standard provisions were legally protected. It also offered no evidence that the third-party purchaser’s identity was confidential.
The court denied the motion to file under seal without prejudice. It stated that Edrington could resubmit the motion in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 by March 3, 2023. The order disposed of Docket No. 21.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.