Rivera, et al v. Nibco Inc, et al

Filing 816

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 794 Motion to Unseal signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 7/16/2024. Redacted Documents due within thirty (30) days. (Lawrence, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTHA RIVERA, et al.,,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:99-cv-06443-JLT-HBK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO
UNSEAL

v.
(Doc. No. 794)
NIBCO INC, et al.,,
Defendant.

16
17

On January 29, 2024, Christopher Ho, former counsel for Plaintiffs in this Title VII and

18

Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) action (“Mr. Ho” or “Movant”) filed a Motion to

19

Unseal Records. (Doc. No. 794). Defendant Nibco filed a Response, seeking extensive

20

redactions to the documents in question. (Doc. No. 802). Movant filed a Reply challenging the

21

proposed redactions. (Doc. No. 807). The Court then directed Defendant to file a sur-reply, in

22

which Nibco submitted a more limited set of proposed redactions. (Doc. Nos. 808, 809). On

23

May 16, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion, and Defendant withdrew certain

24

additional proposed redactions. (Doc. No. 811). For reasons set forth below, the Court grants in

25

large part the Motion.

26

BACKGROUND

27

This Title VII and FEHA case was filed on October 1, 1999. Before the parties filed

28

cross-motions for summary judgment in 2005, they stipulated that all materials associated with

1

those motions be filed under seal, and this Court issued a series of orders sealing certain records

2

filed in each of the three rounds of briefing. (Doc. Nos. 284, 328, 369). Eighteen months after

3

the motions were argued, this Court denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, and granted in

4

part and denied in part defendant’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 436). The case was

5

subsequently tried to a jury, which returned a defense verdict on November 26, 2008. (Doc. No.

6

696). After the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, (Doc. No. 763), the matter

7

was settled, and the Court entered a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on December 7, 2011.

8

(Doc. No. 793).

9

Movant now seeks to unseal certain records pertaining to the dispositive motions in this

10

case under Local Rule 141(f). Specifically, Movant requests to unseal: 1) the parties’ opening,

11

opposition and reply briefs; 2) selected filings related to the parties’ separate statement of

12

undisputed facts; and 3) the Court’s July 12, 2007 order on the cross-motions. (Doc. No. 794 at

13

4). Movant seeks to do so based on the presumption of public access, the lack of compelling

14

reasons for maintaining the documents under seal, and the limited scope of their request. (Id. at

15

5-9). Further, Movant points to the case’s significant pedagogical and precedential value, for

16

which it has already been cited or discussed in more than 600 cases, more than 150 law review

17

articles, and numerous treatises and practice guides. (Doc. No. 794 at 3).

18

Movant attaches the declarations of two law professors who have used Rivera v. Nibco in

19

law school courses to illustrate procedural doctrines, pleading standards, the “different roles that

20

judges can play in managing disputes, including magistrate judges, district court judges, and

21

appellate judges,” and to “illustrate the full sequence of a case in federal court.” (Doc. No. 794-2

22

at 2 ¶ 4); (Doc. No. 794-3 at 2 ¶¶ 4-5). Both professors use the summary judgment briefing in

23

this case to illustrate “how parties claim that the standard for summary judgment is or is not

24

satisfied, how they marshal facts from the extensive discovery conducted in a case to support

25

their differing contentions, and how courts decide whether or not to grant such motions.” (Doc.

26

No. 794-2 at 2-3 ¶ 6); (Doc. No. 794-3 at 3 ¶ 7).

27
28

////
////
2

1

DISCUSSION

2

A. Legal Standard

3

Under Local Rule 141, “[u]pon the motion of any person, or upon the Court’s own

4

motion, the Court may, upon a finding of good cause or consistent with applicable law, order

5

documents unsealed.” L.R. 141(e)(2)(iii) (E.D. Cal. 2023). There is a presumptive right of

6

public access to court records based upon the common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v.

7

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General

8

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). “Unless a particular court record is one

9

traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana

10

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm

11

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).). “In order to overcome this strong

12

presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that

13

outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-

14

79.

15

The presumption of access is “based on the need for federal courts, although

16

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of

17

accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” United

18

States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Valley Broad. Co. v.

19

U.S. Dist. Court—D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the presumption

20

of public access “promot[es] the public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant

21

public events”).

22

Accordingly, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of

23

overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana,

24

447 F.3d at 1178. Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds “a

25

compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis

26

or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. The court must then “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing

27

interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id.

28

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). What
3

1

constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon,

2

435 U.S. at 599.

3

In keeping with the strong public policy favoring access to court records, most judicial

4

records may be sealed only if the court finds “compelling reasons.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745

5

F.3d 1024, 2014 WL 1088254, at *1 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605

6

F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) (amended opinion)). However, a less exacting “good cause”

7

standard “applies to private materials unearthed during discovery,” and to “previously sealed

8

discovery attached to a nondispositive motion.” Id. (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678). Compelling

9

reasons for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for

10

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

11

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting

12

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Here, Nibco seeks redactions under the broad heading of either (1)

13

Personnel Information, (2) Confidential Business Information, or (3) Confidential Information.

14

(See generally Doc. No. 809). The Court discusses the relevant legal standards for each category

15

below.

16
17

1. Personnel Information
While courts routinely seal or redact personally identifiable information such as the names

18

of third parties, phone numbers, home addresses, medical history, and social security numbers,

19

the same protection is not automatically afforded to less sensitive information such as

20

performance reviews, absent a compelling reason. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (“[s]imply

21

redacting the identifying information of third parties (e.g., their names, addresses, telephone

22

numbers, and social security numbers) from these records and disclosing the remaining

23

information would not injure the third parties . . .”); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182

24

(redacting social security numbers and home addresses); United States v. DVH Hosp. All., LLC

25

(D. Nev. May 26, 2023) (redacting private medical information). “While employees may have a

26

privacy interest in their personnel records” the suggestion that an individual’s “career ‘could’ be

27

harmed ‘depending on the contents of the performance evaluations is not sufficient to show that

28

any such harm rises above the speculative level.” DVH Hospital Alliance, LLC, 2023 WL at *2
4

1

(D. Nev. May 26, 2023); but see TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., 2011 WL

2

4947343, at *3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011) (granting redaction of “a relatively small, specific portion

3

of [the] personnel files of . . . third parties who have not chosen to have their personnel records

4

placed in the public record.”). Moreover, while “[f]ederal courts have recognized [a] privacy

5

interest in [employees’] personnel files . . . a generalized assertion of a privacy interest is not

6

sufficient to warrant barring disclosure of a judicial record.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 2012 WL

7

2711032 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184).

8
9

2. Confidential Business Information
Courts within the Ninth Circuit commonly grant sealing requests to protect confidential

10

business information. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx.568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)

11

(finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s

12

competitive strategy”); eBay Inc. v. Boch, 2022 WL 1131720, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022)

13

(finding compelling reasons to seal information about a party’s sales strategies); Barnes v.

14

Hershey Co., 2015 WL 1814293, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to

15

seal information about “business strategy and trade secrets, including internal operations

16

information, account assignments and divisions, financial information regarding specific clients,

17

and [the defendant’s] organization structure and sales strategies”). However, “stale information

18

that is too old to be presently confidential” does not meet the compelling reasons standard. In re

19

Qualcomm Litig., 2019 WL 1598928, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2019).

20
21

3. Confidential Information
Defendant’s briefing refers to a third category, “confidential information,” citing for

22

support to cases concerning personnel information, financial information, and confidential

23

business information. (See, e.g. Doc. No. 809 at 15). Thus, Nibco appears to use “confidential

24

information” as a catch-all category including various types of material typically deemed eligible

25

for sealing under a protective order.

26

B. Analysis

27

Here, Movant seeks to unseal briefing related to cross-motions for summary judgment and

28

a court order ruling on those cross-motions. As a general matter, Nibco’s Surreply Brief,
5

1

containing its updated proposed redactions, does not set forth a showing of particularized harm to

2

support any of the redactions. Rather, it cites cases that purport to support the redaction of the

3

applicable category of information generally. (See generally id.). The Court addresses each

4

document at issue and Nibco’s requested redactions in seriatim.1
1. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s

5

Motion for Summary Judgment2

6

Page 25, chart, Lines 5-163: Nibco seeks to redact a chart that contains the names and shift

7
8

information of Nibco employees, including both Plaintiffs and third parties not involved in this

9

action. At the May 16, 2024 hearing, Nibco appeared to agree that the names and information

10

pertaining to the Plaintiffs in this action should not be redacted but requested that the names of

11

non-parties be redacted. The Court agrees. Because the names of third parties are typically

12

redacted from court documents to protect their privacy interests, the Court will likewise order the

13

name of non-parties redacted but otherwise unseal.

14

Page 27, Lines 19-24: Nibco seeks to redact the names of non-parties discussed in an

15

anecdote regarding language-based conflict among employees. For the same reasons as stated

16

above, the Court agrees and will order the redaction of the names of non-parties and otherwise

17

unseal.

18

Page 38, Lines 16-18: Nibco seeks to redact performance evaluation information

19

regarding Plaintiff Chhom Chan, including comments on her literacy. Nibco does not set forth

20

any particularized showing of harm, nor explain how the record in question could be used to

21

“gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

22

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. As noted above, while “[f]ederal courts have recognized

23

[a] privacy interest in [employees’] personnel files . . . a generalized assertion of a privacy interest

24

is not sufficient to warrant barring disclosure of a judicial record.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake,

25

2012 WL 2711032 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184). Here, the Court finds

26
1

27
28

During the May 16, 2024 hearing on the Motion, Nibco withdrew certain requested redactions, which the
Court does not enumerate here.
2
The Document Number (ECF number) for this document is not known currently.
3
The Court references the page numbers in the CM/ECF headers rather than those in the document.

6

1

Nibco has not shown compelling reasons to bar Plaintiff Chan’s performance evaluation and

2

therefore denies Nibco’s request.

3

Page 47, Line 16 to Page 51, Line 12: Nibco seeks to redact job descriptions of roles at its

4

Fresno plant, which were last updated in 1998. According to information subsequently submitted

5

by Movant, some of the job descriptions were for roles held by Plaintiffs, and others were not. At

6

the May 15, 2024 hearing, Nibco asserted the information was confidential, but could not explain

7

how job descriptions from 1998 concerning a plant no longer owned by Nibco4 could be deemed

8

confidential. While information concerning internal operations may be considered confidential

9

business information, Barnes, 2015 WL 1814293, at *2, as noted above, “stale information that is

10

too old to be presently confidential” does not meet the compelling reasons standard. In re

11

Qualcomm Litig., 2019 WL 1598928 at *3. Given that the information cited is 26 years old and

12

appears to be long outdated, the Court finds there is no compelling reason to redact the cited

13

information.
Page 52, FN 23: This footnote states that “some . . . associates,” including Plaintiffs, took

14
15

advantage of a Nibco program providing free English as a Second Language classes. No

16

individuals are named. The Court finds there is no compelling reason to redact this information,

17

which cannot plausibly be used to “gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

18

statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

19

Page 54, Lines 5-19, and Page 55, Lines 2-13: The cited passage lists the names of Nibco

20

employees who were laid off in two rounds and mentions the performance of a Plaintiff and non-

21

Plaintiff on Nibco’s Z-test. The Court agrees that the names of non-parties should be redacted but

22

the passage should otherwise be unsealed.

23

Page 73-74, FNs 34-35: Education level information for Plaintiffs and non-Plaintiffs. The

24

Court finds compelling reasons to order the redaction of the names only of the non-Plaintiffs, but

25

their education levels may remain.

26

Page 91, FN 41: Personnel information concerning the literacy of one Plaintiff, same as

27
See Doc. No. 794 at 2 (noting that Nibco “no longer owns the micro-irrigation plant in Fresno where the matters at
issue in this case arose.”)
4

28

7

1

that cited on Page 38. The Court finds no compelling reason to redact.
2. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their

2
3

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 304-1, 304-2)

4
5

Doc. No. 304-1
Page 15, FN 5: Nibco requests to redact the name of a customer involved in a defective

6

product incident. Although the incident occurred more than 25 years ago, in an abundance of

7

caution the Court finds compelling reasons to do so as the name of the company in question “is

8

irrelevant but if publicly released could be damaging to reputation and privacy.” Seattle Times

9

Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). Thus, the name of the customer will be ordered

10
11
12
13
14
15

redacted.
Doc. No. 304-2
Page 10, FN 22: Same as above.
3. Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 315)
UF 17, Page 8: This fact again references the defective product issue cited in Doc. No.

16

304. For the same reason cited above, the Court will order redaction of the name of the customer

17

but otherwise unseal the document.

18
19
20

4. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 337)
Page 58, FN 60: This footnote cites the same product quality incident mentioned in Doc.

21

Nos. 304 and 315. For the same reason cited above, the Court will order redaction of the name of

22

the customer but otherwise unseal.

23

5. Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for

24

Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 349, 349-1, 349-3)

25

Doc. No. 349

26

Page 27, Lines 1-15: Same chart as on Page 8 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and

27

Authorities in Support of its MSJ. For the same reasons discussed above, the Court will order

28

redaction of the names of non-Plaintiffs but otherwise unseal.
8

1

Page 29, Lines 12-17: Same discussion as on Page 10 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of

2

Points and Authorities in Support of its MSJ. For the same reasons as stated above, the Court will

3

order redaction of the names of non-parties and otherwise unseal.

4
5

Doc. No. 349-1
Page 8, Lines 5-11: Same discussion of Plaintiff’s Chhom Chan’s literacy as in Plaintiff’s

6

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its MSJ. For the same reasons as stated

7

above, the Court does not find compelling reasons to redact.

8
9

Page 8, FN 17: Name and financial information of a company bought by Nibco, including
its losses prior to being acquired by Nibco. The Court finds the name and financial losses of the

10

company are “irrelevant but if publicly released could be damaging to [its] reputation and

11

privacy,” Seattle Times Co., 467 U.S. 35, and therefore will order this information to be redacted.

12

Page 17, Line 12 to Page 21, Line 28: Largely the same discussion of job descriptions as

13

in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s MSJ. For reasons stated

14

above, the Court will deny the proposed redactions, however the Court will order redaction of the

15

name of the non-party company discussed on line 9 of Page 21.

16

Page 26, Line 16 to Page 27, Line 26: Same information concerning layoff of various

17

Nibco employees as discussed in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

18

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For reasons discussed above, the names of non-

19

parties should be redacted but the passage should otherwise be unsealed.

20
21

Page 28, Lines 10-11: Language proficiency, educational level, and date of layoff for one
Plaintiff. The Court finds no compelling reason to redact.

22
23

Doc. No. 349-3
Pages 3-4, FN 53: Same education level information for Plaintiffs and non-Plaintiffs as in

24

the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s MSJ. For the reasons

25

discussed above, the Court finds compelling reasons to order redaction of the names of non-

26

Plaintiffs only.

27
28

////
////
9

1
2

6. Corrected Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 392)

3

Page 16, FN 23: Similar information as discussed on Page 8 of Doc. No. 349-1. For

4

reasons discussed above, the Court will order redaction of the name of the company and its

5

financial information but otherwise unseal.

6

7. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement of

7

Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

8

(Doc. No. 394)

9

Undisputed Fact (UF) 1, Page 3: This fact provides personnel information concerning the

10

dates of hire and termination of two Plaintiffs. While “[f]ederal courts have recognized [a]

11

privacy interest in [employees’] personnel files . . . a generalized assertion of a privacy interest is

12

not sufficient to warrant barring disclosure of a judicial record.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 2012

13

WL 2711032 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Nibco has not made a particularized showing of harm as to this

14

information, nor is it apparent in what way the information could be used to “gratify private spite,

15

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447

16

F.3d at 1179, and therefore the Court denies the requested redaction.

17
18

UF 3, Pages 3-4: Education level of a single Plaintiff. Nibco did not make a particularized
showing of harm and the Court finds there is no compelling reason to grant the redaction.

19

UF 15, Pages 10-15: Discussion of performance evaluations of several Plaintiffs,

20

including their English language proficiency. Information is highly relevant to the issues in the

21

case and Nibco made no showing of particularized harm from unsealing it. The Court therefore

22

denies the proposed redaction.

23
24
25
26
27
28

UF 17, Page 16: The Court will order redaction of the name of the company that
experienced product defect issues, for reasons discussed above.
UF 38, Pages 24-25: Discussion of the Z test and two non-Parties. The Court will order
redaction of the names of the non-parties.
UF 92, Page 394 at 72-73: The Court will order redaction of the name of the company
that experienced product defect issues, for reasons discussed above.
10

1

8. July 12, 2007 Court Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

2

(Doc. No. 436)

3

Page 73, FN 58, Lines 23-28: Nibco seeks to redact a 1998 job description for a manual

4

assembly position in its Fresno plant. For reasons discussed above, the Court denies the proposed

5

redaction because the allegedly confidential information is too old to retain confidentiality absent

6

a showing of particularized harm.

7

CONCLUSION

8
9
10

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders the unsealing of the documents filed in
conjunction with the summary judgment motions previously decided by this Court.
Specifically, the following documents shall be unsealed following necessary redactions:
1. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

11

Judgment;5

12

2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

13
14

Judgment (Doc. Nos. 304-1, 304-2);
3. Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

15
16

Judgment (Doc. No. 315);
4. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

17
18

for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 337);
5. Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

19
20

(Doc. Nos. 349, 349-1, 349-3);
6. Corrected Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

21
22

(Doc. No. 392);
7. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement of Material Facts in

23

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 394); and

24
25

8. July 12, 2007 Court Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 436).

26

////

27
5

28

Movant previously submitted the pleading without reference to the Doc. No. (ECF No.). The Court has
not been able to determine the number for this document in the Court’s CM/ECF system.

11

1

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

2

1. Movant’s Motion to Unseal Records (Doc. No. 794) is GRANTED subject to the

3

redactions set forth herein and Movant’s submission of redacted documents to the

4

Court.

5

2. Movant shall perform the identified redactions and submit the redacted documents to

6

the Court electronically within 30 days at [e-mail].

7

3. Upon review of the redacted documents, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to file

8

them to the public docket.

9
10
11

Dated:

July 16, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12