Wilson v. Conair Corporation

Filing 120

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/5/2016 DENYING 112 , 114 , 115 Plaintiff's and Defendant's Notices of Requests to Seal Document(s). (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of
herself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 1:14-00894 WBS SAB
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.
CONAIR CORPORATION,
Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

----oo0oo---Plaintiff Delia Wilson brought this putative class
action against Conair Corporation, asserting violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et
seq., the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§ 17200, and breach of implied warranty.

Defendant now requests

the court seal (1) portions of defendant’s opposition to
plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”), Exhibit B to the Saba Declaration, and a portion of
1

1

defendant’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Jennifer

2

L. MacPherson, (Docket No. 112); and (2) portions of plaintiff’s

3

memorandum in support of her motion for leave to file a FAC, the

4

MacPherson declaration, and Exhibit B to the MacPherson

5

Declaration, (Docket No. 114).

6

Plaintiff requests the court seal portions of

7

plaintiff’s reply in support of her motion for leave to file a

8

FAC.

(Docket No. 115.)

9

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

10

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

11

access.

12

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

13

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

14

general history of access and the public policies favoring

15

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

16

judicial process.”

17

on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing

18

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records

19

secret.

20

I.

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling

Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).

In ruling

Id. at 1179.

Defendant’s Requests to Seal

21

Defendant offers little explanation for its requests to

22

seal.

The statements defendant moves to seal all refer to Pam

23

Keegan’s deposition testimony about defendant’s system for

24

handling consumer complaints and reporting complaints to the

25

Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”).

26

Keegan’s deposition was designated confidential under the

27

parties’ stipulated protective order, signed by Magistrate Judge

28

McAuliffe.

Defendant argues

(Stipulation and Order Governing Confidential Info.
2

1

(Docket No. 28).)

2

confidential “because Ms. Keegan testified about Conair

3

Corporation’s confidential STARS complaint documenting system and

4

internal complaint reporting procedures, as well as reporting

5

within Conair Corporation’s legal department regarding consumer

6

complaints.”

7

Defendant contends the deposition is

(Docket No. 112.)

This court has previously pointed out that a

8

confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se

9

constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs

10

the interests of public disclosure and access.

11

Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No.

12

2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

13

v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953;

14

Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No.

15

2:14-02152.

16

the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.

17

See Oct. 8, 2014

The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed

Keegan testified that she believed the legal department

18

is in charge of reviewing consumer complaints to look for

19

possible patterns and that she was “not aware of anybody” who

20

reports consumer complaints to the CPSC at Conair.

21

Declaration Ex. B, Tr. of Test. of Keegan (Docket No. 113-3).)

22

It is difficult to see how this qualifies as confidential

23

information that needs to be kept from the public.

24

concerns do not outweigh the history of access or the public

25

policies favoring disclosure to the public.

26

(See Saba

Defendant’s

The court has reviewed the documents which defendant

27

requests sealed and finds no compelling reason to shield them

28

from public scrutiny.

Accordingly, the court must deny
3

1

defendant’s requests to seal.

2

II.

Plaintiff’s Request to Seal

3

Plaintiff requests the court seal a portion of her

4

reply in support of her motion for leave to file a FAC.

5

Request to Seal at 1.)

6

“contain an excerpt from Pam Keegan’s deposition transcript and

7

summarize the deposition.”

8

“does not believe” the lines “contain or reference information

9

that should be sealed pursuant to statute or law” but that she

10

was obligated to submit a request to seal under the protective

11

order because defendant “designated the entire Keegan deposition

12

transcript ‘confidential.’”

13
14

(Pl.’s

The lines plaintiff request sealed

(Id.)

Plaintiff explains that she

(Id.)

For all the reasons stated above, the court must also
deny plaintiff’s request to seal.

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s and

16

plaintiff’s requests to seal be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.

17

Dated:

February 5, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4