Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Background

The court considered several motions to redact or seal documents filed in connection with discovery matters. The opinion states that none of the motions addressed in the order was disputed by the non-moving party. The court explained that the party seeking redaction or sealing bears the burden of justifying the request.

The court discussed the public’s general right to inspect judicial records and the stronger First Amendment right of access that may apply to judicial documents. It distinguished discovery materials exchanged between the parties from judicial documents, explaining that discovery materials generally do not receive the same presumption of public access. The court also considered the parties’ confidentiality agreements and protective order.

Rulings on the Motions

For ECF No. 153, Nespresso sought to redact and seal its moving brief and exhibits filed in support of a motion to compel documents that Williams-Sonoma was withholding under the common-interest doctrine. The court found that the proposed redactions concerned confidential settlement negotiations and held that the redactions were warranted. Because Nespresso’s sealed filing at ECF No. 158 omitted Exhibits E and G to the declaration of Gina M. Parlovecchio, the court directed Nespresso to refile those exhibits under seal. The court reserved ruling on whether those exhibits should remain sealed until it could review them.

For ECF No. 168, Williams-Sonoma sought to redact and seal its opposition to Nespresso’s motion to compel and related exhibits. The court approved redactions concerning confidential settlement negotiations. It also permitted Williams-Sonoma, at that stage of the case, to redact references to the Foreign Vendor Agreement between Williams-Sonoma and Belmoca and related discovery communications designated confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only under the protective order.

ECF Nos. 175 and 185 involved joint requests concerning submissions related to Williams-Sonoma’s objections to the magistrate judge’s March 12, 2021 Discovery Order. Although those objections were before Judge Loretta A. Preska, the court stated that Judge Preska had referred the case for general pretrial management. Judge Parker therefore retained responsibility for resolving the motions to seal and directed the parties to submit highlighted proposed redactions under seal. The court stated that it would rule on ECF Nos. 175 and 185 after receiving those materials.

For ECF No. 195, the parties jointly sought to redact portions of Williams-Sonoma’s April 27, 2021 letter motion for a pre-motion conference and to seal related exhibits in their entirety. The court found that the materials contained discovery information designated outside-counsel-eyes-only or attorneys’-eyes-only under the protective order. It also found that the materials concerned sensitive business information and marketing strategies whose disclosure could materially harm the parties, and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. The court granted this motion in its entirety.

Disposition

The court granted ECF Nos. 153, 168, and 195, but only to the extent set forth in the order. It directed Nespresso to refile Exhibits E and G under seal by May 12, 2021. It also directed the parties to file under seal the proposed redactions and sealings related to the motions previously submitted to Judge Preska. Finally, it requested that the clerk keep ECF Nos. 157, 170, 172, 174, 197, and 199 under seal, with access limited to the parties and the court.