United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO, Plaintiff,
v.
THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL RE: DKT. NOS. 92,
99, 104, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128
EDWARD
J. DAVILA United States District Judge
The
parties have filed numerous administrative motions to file
under seal in connection with Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. The order addresses these motions.
U.S.
courts recognize that the public has “a general right
to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W.
Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL
1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon
v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
(1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a
strong presumption in favor of access is the starting
point.'” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet
Inc., 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019)
(quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not
absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 WL
1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In
order to seal judicial records that are “more than
tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,
” the moving party must show “compelling
reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that outweigh
the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data,
2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To
make this showing, the moving party must provide
“specific factual findings that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL
1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the
compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade
secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans,
detailed product-specific financial information, customer
information, internal reports and other such materials that
could harm a party's competitive standing. See,
e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx.
568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652;
Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D.
Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015
WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).
However,
courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions
swallow the strong presumption in favor of disclosure.
“There fact that the production of records may lead to
a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court
to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana,
447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated
reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards
burden. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d
470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as
confidential under a protective order is not sufficient to
establish that said document, or portions thereof, are
sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).
It is
well established among District Courts in this Circuit that
motions for class certification are more than tangentially
related to the underlying merits of a case and are therefore
subject to the compelling reasons standard to file under
seal. See, e.g., Waldrup v. Countrywide Fin.
Corp., 2018 WL 4586188, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17,
2018); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at *3; Cohen
v. Trump, 2016 WL 3036302, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 27,
2016). Motions for summary judgment are also more than
tangentially related to the merits of a lawsuit. The court
will apply the compelling reasons standard to all of the
instant motions to seal.
A.
Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. Nos. 119, 121, 127.
Document
|
Portions Requested Sealed
|
The Court's Ruling
|
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
4:19-21; 5:1-12; 5:15-17; 5:23- 24; 5:26-27; 6:1-3;
10:25-11:2; 17:23-24; 14:15-18.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
|
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Michael Jaurigue
|
Its entirety.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
|
Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Michael Jaurigue
|
Its entirety.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing. Moreover, the request is not
narrowly tailored.
|
B.
Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Defendant's
Opposition to Class Certification. Dkt. Nos. 117, 118.
Document
|
Portions Requested Sealed
|
The Court's Ruling
|
Defendants The Häagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.,
Nestlé Dreyer's Ice Cream Company, and
Nestlé USA, Inc.'s Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
Lines 1:17-20, 1:22-24, 4:12-15, and 4:16-18.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
|
Declaration of Jennifer McLean in Support of
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification
|
Lines 3:21-28, 4:2-5, 4:7-9, and 4:12-20.
|
Granted as to ¶ 15; otherwise denied. The court
finds Defendant has not met the compelling reasons
standard.
|
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jennifer McLean in
Support of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
In its entirety.
|
Granted. Denied.
|
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jennifer McLean in
Support of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
In its entirety.
|
The court finds Defendant has not met the compelling
reasons standard
|
Declaration of Matthew Bishop in Support of
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification
|
Lines 3:21-24, 3:26-4:1, and 4:7-15.
|
Granted as to ¶ 11, otherwise denied. The court
finds Defendant has not met the compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the material largely concerns
Defendant's communications to the public and is
therefore not subject to sealing.
|
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Matthew Bishop in
Support of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
In its entirety.
|
Granted.
|
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Matthew Bishop in
Support of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
In its entirety.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard
|
Exhibit C to the Declaration of Matthew Bishop in
Support of Defendants' Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
|
In its entirety.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
|
C.
Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff's
Reply in Support of Class Certification. Dkr. Nos.
123, 124, 128
Document
|
Portions Requested Sealed
|
The Court's Ruling
|
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Her Motion for
Class Certification
|
7:11-13; 14:4-8.
|
Denied. The court finds Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns Defendant's
communications to the public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
|
D.
Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No.
92.
This
motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the
reasons expressed in the court's previous order denying
without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is
denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order,
Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to file under seal.
In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not
seek to seal any material as to which the court has already
denied a motion to file under seal.
E.
Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiffs
Opposition to ...