Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34747 Filed 02/19/18 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: BEARINGS CASES
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM1
`
`DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO MAINTAIN SEAL
`
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) respectfully request that the Court order that excerpts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the Transcript of Oral Argument, DPPs’ Motion for Class Certification and Defendants’ Motion
`
`to Exclude Experts’ Reports and Testimony dated January 18, 2018 be maintained under seal in
`
`the Court’s files.
`
`
`
`The factual and legal support for this Motion is set forth in the accompanying Brief in
`
`Support.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to E. D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(a), via electronic mail, counsel for DPPs explained the
`
`nature of the Motion to counsel for Defendants. Defendants take no position on the Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 Because the transcript at issue was filed on the docket in 12-md-02311, DPPs are filing
`this Motion in 12-md-02311 and 12-cv-00501.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34748 Filed 02/19/18 Page 2 of 14
`
`Dated: February 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/David H. Fink
`David H. Fink (P28235)
`Darryl Bressack (P67820)
`Nathan J. Fink (P75185)
`FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
`38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 971-2500
`
`Interim Liaison Counsel
`
`Joseph C. Kohn
`William E. Hoese
`Douglas A. Abrahams
`KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
`One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
`Philadelphia, PA 19107
`Telephone: (215) 238-1700
`
`Eugene A. Spector
`William G. Caldes
`Jonathan M. Jagher
`Jeffrey L. Spector
`SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
`1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 496-0300
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven A. Kanner
`William H. London
`Michael E. Moskovitz
`FREED KANNER LONDON
` & MILLEN LLC
`2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
`Bannockburn, IL 60015
`Telephone: (224) 632-4500
`
`Gregory P. Hansel
`Randall B. Weill
`Michael S. Smith
`PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
` & PACHIOS LLP
`One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
`Portland, ME 04112-9546
`Telephone: (207) 791-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M. John Dominguez
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
` & TOLL PLLC
`
`
`2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
`Telephone: (561) 833-6575
`
`
`
`
`Solomon B. Cera
`Thomas C. Bright
`Pamela A. Markert
`CERA LLP
`595 Market Street, Suite 2300
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
`Telephone: (415) 777-2230
`
`Additional Counsel
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34749 Filed 02/19/18 Page 3 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`In Re: BEARINGS CASES
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
`MAINTAIN SEAL
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34750 Filed 02/19/18 Page 4 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................................. iii 
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ................................................. iv 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD AND AUTHORITY FOR SEALING ................................ 1 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A.  
`
`DPPs’ Interests In Maintaining The Confidentiality And Privacy
`Of Their Information Outweigh The Public’s Interest In Its
`Disclosure, and References to DPPs’ Competitively Sensitive
`Information and Work Product Should Be Maintained Under Seal. .......... 2 
`
`B.   Means Other Than Sealing Are Unavailable. ............................................. 5 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 6 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34751 Filed 02/19/18 Page 5 of 14
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED
`
`Whether the Court should permit competitively sensitive information and expert work
`
`product contained in the Transcript of Oral Argument, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Class Certification and Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Experts’ Reports and Testimony dated
`
`January 1, 2018 to be maintained under seal in the Court’s files.
`
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34752 Filed 02/19/18 Page 6 of 14
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
`
`E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.3(b)(2)
`Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016)
` 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34753 Filed 02/19/18 Page 7 of 14
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The sealed Transcript of Oral Argument, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“DPPs”) Motion for
`
`Class Certification and Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Experts’ Reports and Testimony dated
`
`January 18, 2018 (“Motion Hearing Transcript”) contains DPPs’ competitively sensitive
`
`information, including DPPs’ expert work product, which DPPs have a privacy interest in
`
`protecting from public disclosure. Because DPPs’ interests in maintaining the confidentiality and
`
`privacy of their competitively sensitive information outweigh the public’s limited interest in its
`
`disclosure, DPPs respectfully request that the Court order that the certain excerpts of the Motion
`
`Hearing Transcript containing DPPs’ competitively sensitive information and expert work product
`
`be maintained under seal. DPPs have carefully examined the Motion Hearing Transcript and
`
`narrowly tailored their request to maintain under seal only portions of the Motion Hearing
`
`Transcript that contain such information.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD AND AUTHORITY FOR SEALING
`
`
`
`The Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules provide that a party seeking to file an item
`
`under seal must serve a motion that includes the following: (1) the authority for sealing; (2) an
`
`identification and description of each item proposed for sealing; (3) the reason for which sealing
`
`each item is necessary; (4) the reason that a means other than sealing is unavailable or
`
`unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by the movant in support of the seal; and (5) a
`
`supporting brief. E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.3(b)(2). “[T]his Court, as every other court, ‘has supervisory
`
`power over its own records and files.’” Sami v. Detroit Med. Ctr., No. 12-12660, 2012 WL
`
`3945532, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S.
`
`589, 598 (1978)). Consistent with that authority, this Court has the power to seal records under
`
`appropriate circumstances. Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34754 Filed 02/19/18 Page 8 of 14
`
`1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)). That power, however, is limited by the public’s presumptive right to
`
`inspect and copy judicial documents and files. In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d
`
`470, 474 (6th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, in Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
`
`Michigan, the Sixth Circuit recognized that “even where a party can show a compelling reason
`
`why certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly
`
`tailored to serve that reason.” 825 F.3d 299, 305-06 (6th Cir. 2016). Compelling reasons arise
`
`and the presumption of public access may be overcome where “interests of privacy outweigh the
`
`public’s right to know.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d at 474. Thus, judicial
`
`records may be sealed where there is a “particularized need for confidentiality, such as when trade
`
`secrets, national security, or certain privacy rights of trial participants or third parties are
`
`implicated.” Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. v. Zaremba Fam. Farms, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-369, 2012
`
`WL 1377598, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2012) (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710
`
`F.2d at 1179).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`DPPs’ Interests In Maintaining The Confidentiality And Privacy Of Their
`Information Outweigh The Public’s Interest In Its Disclosure, and References
`to DPPs’ Competitively Sensitive Information and Work Product Should Be
`Maintained Under Seal.
`This Court has recognized that competitively sensitive information should remain under
`
`seal,2 which is in line with the Supreme Court’s longstanding recognition that courts may “refuse”
`
`                                                            
`2 See Order Granting SEI’s Motion to Seal Exhibit 30 to the Statement of Undisputed Facts
`in Support of Denso’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 1 (2:12-cv-00101, Doc. No. 367) (Dec.
`28, 2016) (competitively sensitive information); Order Granting the Furukawa Defendants’
`[Unopposed] Motion to Maintain Information Under Seal (2:12-cv-00101, Doc. No. 376) (Jan. 4,
`2017) (same); Order Granting Mitsubishi Electric’s Motion to Seal Exhibit 31 to the Statement of
`Undisputed Facts in Support of Denso’s Motion for Summary Judgment (12-cv-00101, Doc. No.
`369) (Dec. 28, 2016) (same); Order Granting Non-Party Toyota’s Motion to Maintain Under Seal
`Certain Portions of the Defendants’ Summary Judgment Materials Pursuant to L.R. 5.3(b) at 1
`(2:12-cv-00101, Doc. No. 368) (Dec. 28, 2016) (same).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34755 Filed 02/19/18 Page 9 of 14
`
`to permit their files to serve “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
`
`competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Similarly, in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit concluded that detailed product-specific financial information,
`
`including such things as costs, sales, profits, and profit margins, is appropriately sealable under
`
`the “compelling reasons” standard where that information can be used to the company’s
`
`competitive disadvantage. 727 F.3d 1214, 1223-25 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Applying this reasoning,
`
`courts routinely allow documents containing cost, pricing, and sales terms to be filed under seal.
`
`See, e.g., TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4448022, at *3-4 (N.D.
`
`Cal. July 19, 2015) (granting motion to seal documents containing product-specific profit margins,
`
`average sales prices, number of units sold, and confidential product pricing information); Asetek
`
`Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-00457-JST, 2015 WL 4511036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July
`
`23, 2015) (granting motion to seal filings containing sales figures, profit margins, and royalty
`
`rates); see also Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health Inc., No. CIVA 3-6025FLW, 2007
`
`WL 2085350, at *6 (D. N.J. July 18, 2007) (“Commercially sensitive information, such as
`
`information from which profit margins can be deduced, and from which a litigant’s market
`
`competitiveness may be harmed is often sealed from public access.”).
`
`Courts also regularly allow documents containing information relating to negotiations and
`
`negotiation strategies to be filed under seal on the ground that they are trade secrets.3 See, e.g.,
`
`F.T.C. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 11 C 50344, 2012 WL 1144620, at *2-10 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5,
`
`2012) (concluding that documents containing contract negotiations and strategies qualified as trade
`
`                                                            
`3 Unlike the parties in Shane, DPPs offer more than “only platitudes” to support their
`request to keep their financial and negotiating information under seal. See id. at 308. Indeed,
`DPPs have described in detail the financial and negotiating information they seek to seal and
`demonstrated how the information is competitively sensitive.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34756 Filed 02/19/18 Page 10 of 14
`
`secrets and granting motions to seal); Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa, Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health
`
`Sys., Ltd., No. 1:12-CV-00560-BLW, 2015 WL 632311, at *5 (D. Idaho Feb. 13, 2015) (“Each of
`
`these exhibits contains some mixture of negotiating strategy, prices, rates, projections, and other
`
`financial information . . . . If revealed to competitors, they would obtain a competitive advantage
`
`. . . . As such, each contains trade secrets. The Court therefore finds compelling reasons to seal
`
`these five exhibits.”) (internal citation omitted). In Shane, the Sixth Circuit recognized that
`
`“legitimate trade secrets [are] a recognized exception to the right of public access to judicial
`
`records.” 825 F.3d at 308. Courts have also permitted documents containing expert work product
`
`to be filed under seal. Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 3:04-CV-703-RAM, 2010 WL 2161930, at
`
`*6 (D. Nev. May 28, 2010) (concluding that defendant had shown good cause to maintain expert
`
`report under seal where the report contained defendant’s “proprietary information, attorney-client
`
`communication, and work product”); see also Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. C 06-3903 TEH,
`
`2008 WL 346417, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) (“[T]his Court will not grant Objectors discovery
`
`of workforce data, or order disclosure of the privileged work product in Mr. Klein’s declaration
`
`filed under seal, so that Objectors can provide an alternative valuation of damages.”).
`
`DPPs have identified the following excerpts of the Motion Hearing Transcript as
`
`containing DPPs’ competitively sensitive information:
`
` Motion Hearing Transcript 196:17-21: This excerpt describes the types of bearings
`
`that DPP Sherman Bearings, Inc. purchased from Defendants and the manner in
`
`which Sherman purchased those bearings.
`
` Motion Hearing Transcript 196:23-197:1: This excerpt describes the types of
`
`bearings that DPP McGuire Bearings Co. purchased from Defendants and the
`
`manner in which McGuire purchased those bearings.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34757 Filed 02/19/18 Page 11 of 14
`
` Motion Hearing Transcript 197:2: This excerpt describes the manner in which DPP
`
`DALC Gear & Bearing Supply Corp. purchased bearings from Defendants.
`
`DPPs have identified the following excerpts of the Motion Hearing Transcript as containing DPPs’
`
`expert work product:
`
` Motion Hearing Transcript 21:24-25; 22:8-9; 29:10-12; 40:23; 61:13-15; 80:4-5;
`
`80:16-17; 88:9; 210:16; 224:25-225:1; 225:10; 225:20: These excerpts discuss the
`
`percentage overcharge calculated by DPPs’ expert.
`
`The information contained in the Motion Hearing Transcript discloses the types of bearings
`
`DPPs’ purchased from Defendants and the manner in which DPPs made those purchases. This is
`
`precisely the type of information routinely found to be competitively sensitive trade secrets.
`
`Additionally, the percentage overcharge disclosed in the Motion Hearing Transcript was calculated
`
`by DPPs’ experts and was derived from highly confidential and sensitive pricing data produced by
`
`the parties during the discovery phase in the litigation and constitutes DPPs’ expert work product.
`
`Accordingly, DPPs request that this Court conclude that the sections of the Motion Hearing
`
`Transcript identified above constitute competitively sensitive information and expert work
`
`product, that DPPs’ interests in maintaining the confidentiality of these sections outweigh the
`
`public’s right to access them, and order that they be maintained under seal.
`
`B. Means Other Than Sealing Are Unavailable.
`There are no other satisfactory means available to preserve DPPs’ interests in maintaining
`
`
`
`the privacy of their competitively sensitive information and work product. Rather than ask the
`
`Court to maintain the Motion Hearing Transcript under seal in its entirety, however, DPPs have
`
`narrowly tailored their requests to include only those excerpts of the Motion Hearing Transcript
`
`that contain competitively sensitive information or expert work product.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34758 Filed 02/19/18 Page 12 of 14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should conclude that the excerpts of the Motion
`
`Hearing Transcript identified by DPPs as containing competitively sensitive information or expert
`
`work product are protected from disclosure. Accordingly, DPPs request the Court order that these
`
`excerpts be maintained under seal.
`
`Dated: February 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven A. Kanner
`William H. London
`Michael E. Moskovitz
`FREED KANNER LONDON
` & MILLEN LLC
`2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
`Bannockburn, IL 60015
`Telephone: (224) 632-4500
`
`Gregory P. Hansel
`Randall B. Weill
`Michael S. Smith
`PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
` & PACHIOS LLP
`One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
`Portland, ME 04112-9546
`Telephone: (207) 791-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/David H. Fink
`David H. Fink (P28235)
`Darryl Bressack (P67820)
`Nathan J. Fink (P75185)
`FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
`38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 971-2500
`
`Interim Liaison Counsel
`
`Joseph C. Kohn
`William E. Hoese
`Douglas A. Abrahams
`KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
`One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
`Philadelphia, PA 19107
`Telephone: (215) 238-1700
`
`Eugene A. Spector
`William G. Caldes
`Jonathan M. Jagher
`Jeffrey L. Spector
`SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
`1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 496-0300
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34759 Filed 02/19/18 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`M. John Dominguez
`COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
` & TOLL PLLC
`
`
`2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
`Telephone: (561) 833-6575
`
`
`
`
`Solomon B. Cera
`Thomas C. Bright
`Pamela A. Markert
`CERA LLP
`595 Market Street, Suite 2300
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
`Telephone: (415) 777-2230
`
`Additional Counsel
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 1859, PageID.34760 Filed 02/19/18 Page 14 of 14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 19, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with
`
`
`
`the Clerk of the court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`counsel of record registered for electronic filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Nathan J. Fink
`David H. Fink (P28235)
`Darryl Bressack (P67820)
`Nathan J. Fink (P75185)
`FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
`38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`(248) 971-2500
`
`
`
`