Monica Bruce et al v. Teleflora LLC

Filing 48

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II:the Court DENIES Plaintiffs application to file under seal.Plaintiffs application to file Exhibits 3 23 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may reapply to file these exhibits under seal. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Application to file Exhibit 2, Exhibit 24, and the Declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen under seal with prejudice. The Court DENIES Pl aintiffs Application to file its Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification under seal without prejudice. Plaintiffs may reapply to file their unredacted memorandum under seal, but Plaintiffs must also file a redacted version of the memorandum for public viewing. The redacted version of the memorandum should be edited to omit only the material that the parties believe in light of this order are truly confidential. (lc) Modified on 10/4/2013. (lc). Modified on 10/4/2013 (lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MONICA BRUCE and DONNA
STUBBS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
v.

Plaintiffs,

TELEFLORA, L.L.C.,

Case No. 2:13-cv-03279-ODW(CWx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS
UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Application to File Exhibits Under Seal
in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiffs
endeavor to seal (1) the declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen; (2) Plaintiffs’
Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification; and (3) over twenty exhibits,
which consist of printouts from Teleflora’s website, rules and regulations governing
Teleflora’s member florists, a Teleflora floral-selection guide workbook, multiple
field-sale executive-summary reports, a message log, and Plaintiffs’ expert report.
These documents have been designated “Confidential” under the terms of the parties’
pending stipulated protective order.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is “clear that the courts
of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

1

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

2

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit stated

3

that there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State

4

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to override

5

this weighty presumption, a party must demonstrate “sufficiently compelling reasons”

6

for sealing the documents. Id. Any request “must articulate compelling reasons

7

supported by specific factual findings” why each individual exhibit merits filing under

8

seal. Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A

9

court will then balance the public’s interest in accessing these documents with the

10

confidentiality and potential for misuse of the information. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

11

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

12
13

The Court has read each page of the documents Plaintiffs seek to file under seal.
Upon review, there seems to be an over designation of confidential information.

14

Exhibit 2 to the Thigpen Declaration contains copies of sample product pages

15

from Teleflora’s website. The sample products displayed can be accessed by the

16

public at Teleflora’s website and do not reflect trade secrets, personal data, or

17

commercially-sensitive data. Neither party in this case has carried its burden of

18

demonstrating sufficiently compelling reasons for denying the public access to this

19

exhibit. Examination of Exhibit 24, Plaintiffs’ expert report, also reveals a complete

20

lack of trade secrets or sensitive data.

21

Similarly, the Thigpen Declaration itself does not contain any trade secrets or

22

commercially sensitive data. The declaration merely identifies the exhibits requested

23

to be filed under seal—but does not discuss them in substantive detail. Thus the Court

24

finds that neither party has demonstrated a compelling reason for filing the declaration

25

under seal.

26

Additionally, while Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Class

27

Certification does reference exhibits that the Court finds are properly filed under seal,

28

this alone is not a compelling reason to file the entire brief under seal.

2

Mere

1

identification of or general reference to the exhibits—without substantive discussion

2

of their confidential content—does not reveal trade secrets or confidential data. For

3

example, page eleven of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Class

4

Certification references Exhibits 3–5 but does not discuss their substance. There is no

5

compelling reason for this portion of the brief to be filed under seal. In contrast, pages

6

12–13 quote confidential comments made in the Field Sales Executive Summaries,

7

which is properly filed under seal.

8

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application to file under seal.

9

Plaintiffs’ application to file Exhibits 3–23 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs

10

may reapply to file these exhibits under seal.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’

11

Application to file Exhibit 2, Exhibit 24, and the Declaration of Jordanna G. Thigpen

12

under seal with prejudice. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Application to file its

13

Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification under seal without prejudice.

14

Plaintiffs may reapply to file their unredacted memorandum under seal, but Plaintiffs

15

must also file a redacted version of the memorandum for public viewing.

16

redacted version of the memorandum should be edited to omit only the material that

17

the parties believe—in light of this order—are truly confidential.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

October 3, 2013

22
23
24

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

3

The