Davis v. Social Service Coordinators, Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/21/2012. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12

LISA DAVIS,

13
14

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02372-LJO-SKO
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

v.

15
(Doc. 58)
16

SOCIAL SERVICE COORDINATORS,
INC., et al.,

17
Defendants.
18

/

19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION

21

On June 15, 2012, Plaintiff Lisa Davis ("Plaintiff") filed a "Notice of Request to Seal

22

Documents." (Doc. 58.) Plaintiff seeks to seal documents that Kristie Goss obtained during the

23

course of her employment at Defendant Social Service Coordinators, Inc. Ms. Goss has provided

24

a declaration in support of Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification (see Doc. 59-5), and

25

the documents Plaintiff seeks to seal are attached as exhibits to Ms. Goss' declaration. For the

26

reasons that follow, Plaintiff's request to seal documents is GRANTED.

27
28

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

A motion to seal documents implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public records

3

and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comm'cs, Inc.,

4

435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption in

5

favor of access to court records. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

6

(9th Cir. 2003) (stipulated order without more insufficient basis to seal court records). The right to

7

access is not absolute and can be overridden where there are sufficiently compelling reasons. Id.

8

The party seeking to seal a document related to a non-dispositive motion must meet the "good

9

cause" standard set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) that applies to protective orders.

10

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Kamakana v. City &

11

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting differing treatment of judicial

12

records attached to dispositive motions versus those attached to non-dispositive motions).1 In the

13

Rule 26(c) context, "[a] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document

14

it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is

15

granted." Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples

16

or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test." Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

17

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). "If a court finds particularized

18

harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private

19

interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary." Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d

20

1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002).

21

Here, Plaintiff is seeking to seal information that declarant Kristie Goss obtained during the

22

course of her employment with Social Service Coordinators, Inc. In other words, the documents that

23

are the subject of the sealing request were apparently created by Defendant Social Service

24

Coordinators, Inc. and disseminated to its employees.2 Plaintiff maintains that these documents are

25
26
27
28

1

As Plaintiff's sealing request pertains to a non-dispositive motion, the "good cause" standard applies.

2
It is unclear whether the documents sought to be sealed were actually produced by Plaintiff or Defendants
during discovery.

2

1

similar to those produced by Defendants Social Service Coordinators, Inc. and Social Services

2

Coordinators, LLC (collectively, "Defendants") during discovery and designated as "confidential"

3

or contain information Plaintiff believes Defendants would otherwise deem confidential. As it

4

relates to filing documents produced in discovery that either party has designated confidential, the

5

parties agreed as follows:

6
7
8
9
10

Disclosure to the Court. Confidential Information shall not be filed with the Court
except where reasonably necessary in connection with any motion, hearing,
conference, proceeding, trial or appeal in this Action. If counsel for any Party to the
Action determines to file with, or submit to, the Court (other than at hearing) (a) any
Confidential Information, or (b) any pleading or other Document making any direct
reference to the specific content of Confidential Information, if no Party objects, the
filing under seal with the Court in accordance with current procedures and
requirements for seeking such filings. In the event a Party objects to such a filing
under seal, the Party seeking to make such filing shall seek, upon proper notice to the
other Party, leave of Court to do so.

11
12

The documents at issue generally contain Defendants' internal operating procedures as well

13

as scripts for employees to follow when interacting with prospective customers. In Navarro v.

14

Eskanos & Adler, No. C-06-02231 WHA (EDL), 2007 WL 902550, at *5-10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22,

15

2007), the district court considered whether good cause was established to maintain a confidentiality

16

designation with respect to the defendant's training and procedure guide. With respect to pages of

17

the training and procedure guide that provided training information in textual and schematic form,

18

which had been developed by defendant over a number of years to efficiently run the business and

19

provide the company with a competitive advantage in defendant's industry, the court determined

20

there was good cause to maintain the confidentiality designation. Id. at * 6.

21

Like Navarro, the documents at issue provide internal operating procedures as well as scripts

22

for employees to follow when interacting with customers. As was discussed in the Court's prior

23

sealing order in this matter, should these documents be disseminated publicly, Defendants'

24

competitors may reap the benefit of the internal operating procedures and information without having

25

to incur the costs associated with developing the scripts and internal procedures. The Court finds

26

that there is good cause to seal Exhibits A through H to the Declaration of Kristie Goss, which

27

outweighs the public's presumptive right to access judicial documents. Plaintiff's request to seal

28

Exhibits A through H to the Declaration of Kristie Goss (Doc. 59-5) is GRANTED.

3

1

III.

2

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

Plaintiff's request to seal documents is GRANTED; and

4

2.

Plaintiff is directed to submit the documents to be sealed to the Clerk of the Court as

CONCLUSION

provided in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i).3

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ie14hj

June 21, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3

27
28

Should Plaintiff elect to submit the documents to be sealed to the Clerk of Court electronically, this can be
accomplished by emailing the documents to [e-mail]. A link to the Clerk's email address
fo r s e a le d d o c u m e n ts is c o n ta in e d o n th e C o u r t's w e b s ite a t th e fo llo w in g lo c a tio n :
http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/staticother/page_1652.htm.

4