ESC-Toy Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

Background

The parties filed several administrative motions to file documents under seal, including Docket Nos. 315, 320, and 336. The court stated that the proposed sealing was generally too broad. Under the applicable local rules, a party seeking to seal material must explain the legal standard, the private or public interests supporting sealing, the injury that could result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient.

For dispositive motions and judicial records attached to them, the court explained that a party must show “compelling reasons” supported by specific factual findings. The court stated that sealing may be appropriate for confidential business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive standing or for trade secrets. Merely invoking a general category of privilege without linking it specifically to the documents does not satisfy the party’s burden.

The Court’s Concerns

Sony sought to seal fourteen entire exhibits related to its motion to disqualify. The court noted that local rules require parties to minimize sealed documents, avoid sealing entire documents when possible, and use narrowly tailored redactions. The court found that Sony had provided only general reasons for sealing the exhibits, some of which contained key depositions and internal emails.

ESC provisionally filed its opposition to Sony’s motion to disqualify with a request to seal portions of the opposition. ESC relied on the fact that the information had been designated by Sony as confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only under the protective order. The court found those proposed redactions insufficiently narrow. The materials included Ms. Gayner’s deposition transcript and a letter concerning her involvement in the case; ESC’s counsel could no longer access portions of Ms. Gayner’s documents under the protective order.

Order

Because of the unusual circumstance involving ESC’s counsel’s lack of access to portions of Ms. Gayner’s documents, the court ordered Sony to propose which portions should be filed under seal. Sony was directed to consider both the protective order and Sony’s confidential business information concerning its licensing practices and business strategies. The court clarified that the fact that Ms. Gayner had access to insider information did not itself need to be sealed, although her specific discussions about how Sony would interpret its licensing contracts could be sealed.

Sony was directed to revise its motions to file under seal by Friday, June 7, 2024. Sony also had to narrow its redaction requests and provide declarations explaining why each redaction satisfied the local rule. The court stated that failure to comply could result in complete denial of the motion. The order did not state that the sealing motions were granted or denied.