Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
4:17-cv-01892
N.D. Cal.Oct 16, 2019Background:
- Plaintiffs Charles Baird et al. sued defendants including BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.; defendants filed Rule 72 objections to Magistrate Judge Westmore’s September 24, 2019 order compelling production of fifteen documents (Dkt. No. 350; objections Dkt. No. 355).
- Defendants sought relief from the magistrate’s nondispositive pretrial order, arguing privilege/redaction rights as to the fifteen documents.
- Separately, defendants moved to seal Exhibits 1–9 to a declaration (confidential BlackRock business/financial/client information) and five lines of their motion that referenced those exhibits (Dkt. No. 354).
- The district court reviewed the magistrate’s order under the highly deferential “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard for nondispositive matters and applied the lower “good cause” Rule 26(c) standard for sealing nondispositive-motion attachments.
- The court denied defendants’ motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s order, finding no clear error or contrary-to-law basis; it granted in part and denied in part the sealing motion—Exhibits 1–9 sealed, the five-line excerpt not sealed—and ordered public versions or new sealing motions within seven days.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge’s order compelling production of 15 documents should be set aside under Rule 72/Civil L.R. 72-2 | Baird: Magistrate’s order to produce was proper and should stand | BlackRock: May withhold or redact the 15 documents on privilege/confidentiality grounds; magistrate erred | Denied—district court found magistrate’s order not clearly erroneous or contrary to law |
| Whether Exhibits 1–9 and five lines of defendants’ motion should be filed under seal | Baird: Public right of access weighs against sealing these portions | BlackRock: Exhibits and related lines contain confidential business, financial, and client information—good cause to seal | Granted in part: Exhibits 1–9 sealed under good-cause Rule 26(c); sealing denied for five-line excerpt; defendants must file public versions or renewed motions within 7 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (review standard for magistrate nondispositive pretrial orders)
- Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (district court may not substitute its judgment for magistrate’s absent clear error)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling reasons standard for sealing dispositive materials; nondispositive attachments subject to Rule 26(c) good cause)
- Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (good-cause requires particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm)
- Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (broad, unsubstantiated allegations of harm insufficient to seal)
- Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (recognizing confidentiality of certain business/financial client information for sealing purposes)