Emmons et al v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 93

ORDER Denying 92 Request to Seal and ORDERING Plaintiffs to Submit Documents, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/2017. (Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DOROTHEA EMMONS, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM

Plaintiffs,
v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL
AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT
DOCUMENTS

Defendants.
This matter is a putative class action originally filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court

18

and removed to this court on April 1, 2013. (Doc. No. 1.) The court granted preliminary

19

approval of a class action settlement and preliminary certification of the class on June 22, 2016,

20

though the court noted at that time it expected further evidence in the form of declarations and

21

affidavits would be submitted on the issue of commonality prior to the final fairness hearing.

22

(Doc. No. 81.) On December 20, 2016, plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and for final

23

approval of the class action settlement were heard. (Doc. Nos. 86, 88, 90.) At that hearing, the

24

court indicated that the evidence presented on the issue of commonality was insufficient and

25

directed plaintiffs to file supplemental briefing including additional evidence of commonality.

26

Plaintiffs filed this supplement briefing on January 17, 2017, as directed. (Doc. No. 91.)

27

However, the supplement briefing was also accompanied by a request to seal certain documents.

28

(Doc. No. 92.) For the reasons set forth below, that request to file under seal must be denied.
1

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News,

3

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits

4

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).

5

Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may order that a filing

6

be made under seal without redaction.” However, even if a court orders such a filing, it may

7

“later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the

8

public record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

9

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

10

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.

11

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).

12
13

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

14

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]
differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those
who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to
dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that
“compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing
under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to
non-dispositive motions.

15
16
17
18

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). Under the “compelling reasons” standard

19

applicable to dispositive motions such as the one at issue here,1

20

[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of
the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal
certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

While courts frequently use the language of “dispositive” and “non-dispositive,” the Ninth
Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever the motion at issue
“is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, in certain instances, the proposed filing of
documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunction, for sanctions, or in
limine, though such motions are not actually dispositive of an issue or claim, may be subjected to
the “compelling reasons” test, predicated on the public’s right of access and the need to “provide
the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of
its fairness.” Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998
F.2d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1993)).
2

1

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
on hypothesis or conjecture.

2
3

Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). The party seeking to

4

seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178;

5

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when

7

such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

8

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

9

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the

10

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

11

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. “The

12

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were

13

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79.

14
15

DISCUSSION
The request to file under seal now pending before the court relates to a motion for final

16

approval of a class action settlement. The undersigned concludes that it is therefore governed by

17

the “compelling reasons” standard as it disposes of all federal proceedings and is fully related to

18

the merits of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (noting a motion to dismiss or permit

19

maintenance of a class action may not be heard by a magistrate judge absent consent to magistrate

20

judge jurisdiction for all purposes); Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101 (applying the

21

compelling reasons standard to any motion “more than tangentially related to the merits of the

22

case”); Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that where a motion is

23

“dispositive of all federal proceedings in a case, . . . [it] is properly characterized as a dispositive

24

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)”); Strong v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 908, 913–14

25

(N.D. Cal. 1999) (describing the excepted motions under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as dispositive

26

motions); Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace, 570 F. Supp. 202, 204–05 (N.D. Cal. 1983) (noting a

27

district judge must provide de novo review of any dispositive motions listed under 28 U.S.C.

28

§ 636(b)(1)(A)). Therefore, the party seeking to seal the documents in question in this instance
3

1

must demonstrate “compelling reasons” exist to justify sealing them. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

2

1178–80.

3

Here, in attempting to demonstrate commonality, plaintiffs have submitted to the court

4

various labor policy documents provided in discovery by defendants. (Doc. No. 92 at 2.)

5

Plaintiffs assert “such documents are internal operating policies that are maintained confidentially

6

by Defendants and are not publicly disseminated, and have not been made public in this

7

litigation.” (Doc. No. 92 at 2.) This statement, however, falls far short of demonstrating the

8

documents might “‘become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify

9

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id.

10

at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Moreover, the court has examined the documents in

11

question, and nothing on their face suggests they are sensitive, scandalous, or might be used to

12

further nefarious or improper purposes if disclosed to the public.

13

CONCLUSION

14

For the reasons set forth above, the request to file under seal (Doc. No. 92) is denied

15

without prejudice to its renewal supported by a proper showing satisfying the compelling reasons

16

standard discussed above. See Local Rule 141(e). Within seven (7) days of the service of this

17

order, plaintiffs must file a notice with the court indicating whether they (1) will seek to file the

18

documents in question on the public docket; (2) will seek to renew the request to seal with a

19

proper showing of compelling reasons for the requested sealing; or (3) wish the court to simply

20

rule upon their motions for attorneys’ fees and for final approval of class action settlement based

21

on the materials already filed with the court. If plaintiffs file a notice indicating that they will

22

seek to renew the request to seal supported by a proper showing, the renewed request to seal must

23

be filed within seven (7) days thereafter.

24

Recognizing that it may be defendants here who are better suited to justify the need for the

25

filing of these documents under seal, if plaintiffs file a notice of an intent to file the documents on

26

the public record, they are directed to simultaneously identify for defense counsel which

27

documents they intend to so file with the court. Defense counsel will then have fourteen (14)

28

days from the date of service of the notice of intention to file unsealed documents to submit a
4

1

request that the documents be filed under seal supported by an appropriate showing of compelling

2

reasons. Any opposition to such a request should be filed in accordance with Local Rule 141(c).

3

If defendants do not request the documents be filed under seal within the time provided, plaintiffs

4

shall file the documents with the court on the public docket within three (3) days following the

5

expiration of the above period.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

January 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5