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)

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