Campbell v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP

Filing 492

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/29/2011 DENYING 255 , 258 Motions for Summary Judgment and 402 Motion for Reconsideration, as moot; Parties may renotice the motions for hearing; GRANTING 394 Motion to Seal. The filing shall be tentatively SEALED. (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH SOBEK, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,, NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 O R D E R PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership;, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 17 Defendant. 18 / 19 Pending before the court are four motions: ECF Nos. 255, 258, 20 394 and 402. Two motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 255 and 21 258, were filed on October 27, 2008. The first is a Motion for 22 Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs on defendant’s alleged breach 23 of legal duty under California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 24 226.7, 512, 226, 203, and 218.6. The second is a Motion for Summary 25 Judgment filed by defendant on the claims asserted by plaintiff 26 Jason Campbell. On March 11, 2009, the court issued an order 1 1 granting a separate summary judgment motion filed by plaintiffs, 2 and granting in part a summary judgment motion filed by defendants. 3 In the March 11 order, the court held that the plaintiff class 4 members are non-exempt employees. The court certified that matter 5 for interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 390. Plaintiffs filed a Motion 6 for Reconsideration of other portions of the March 11, 2009 order. 7 ECF No. 402. Defendants appealed the court’s holding that the 8 members of the plaintiff class are non-exempt employees to the 9 Ninth Circuit. 10 On March 27, 2009, this court issued an order stating that the 11 Ninth Circuit decision on the appeal “may heavily impact the 12 remainder of this case,” and the court vacated the hearing on the 13 two summary judgment motions filed on October 27, 2008, as well as 14 on the motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 425. 15 On June 15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion 16 reversing and remanding this court’s holding that the plaintiff 17 class members are non-exempt. ECF No. 481. The Ninth Circuit issued 18 its mandate on August 5, 2011. 19 It is unclear to the court whether the Ninth Circuit’s opinion 20 affects the two pending motions for summary judgment, and the 21 motion 22 motions, as presented, are moot and are DENIED. If either party 23 believes that the motions are not moot, it may re-notice the 24 motions for hearing. 25 26 for reconsideration. Additionally, Objections to defendant Evidence The has Submitted 2 court filed in determines a motion Support of that to these seal its Plaintiffs’ 1 Opposition to Motion to Decertify Class. ECF No. 394. When a party 2 seeks to seal a document that is part of the judicial record, it 3 must show “compelling reasons” for doing so. Pintos v. Pac. 4 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). See also 5 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 6 Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 7 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to seal judicial records 8 must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 9 findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the 10 public 11 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). 12 policies favoring disclosure.’” For the foregoing reasons, the Pintos, id. (quoting Court tentatively GRANTS 13 plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that this 14 sealing is tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court will 15 revisit whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a 16 later time, when it is possible to perform the fact specific 17 analysis required by Foltz. 18 Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 19 [1] The following motions are DENIED as MOOT: ECF Nos. 20 255, 258, and 402. If either party wishes, it may re- 21 notice the motions for hearing. 22 [2] Defendant’s Motion to Seal, ECF No. 394 is GRANTED. 23 The filing shall be tentatively SEALED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: September 29, 2011. 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?