Schmuckley et al v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 363

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/15/2020 GRANTING 344 Notice of Request to Seal Documents to the extent explained. The court DIRECTS defendant to file the redacted documents within 7 days of this order, and to concurrently provide the Clerk of Court with the corresponding unredacted documents for filing under seal. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
ex rel. LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:12-CV-01699-KJM-EFB

ORDER

RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant.

16
17

Relator has filed a notice of request to seal, ECF No. 344, along with an in camera

18

request for the sealing or redaction of the documents defendants seek to file in connection with

19

their opposition to plaintiff’s pending motion to amend. See ECF Nos. 318 and 318-2. Relators’

20

filing is consistent with the procedures this court requires with respect to sealing requests,

21

recognizing the burden to justify sealing or redaction rests with the person or party claiming

22

confidentiality in the information covered by a request.

23
24

I.

INTRODUCTION
Relator’s motion asserts the documents covered by its motion contain information

25

appropriated sealed or redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local Rules 140

26

and 141, because they are employee pay stubs, including social security numbers, addresses, full

27

names and birthdates. Each of these documents is submitted as evidence in support of

28
1

1

defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to join defendant subsidiaries. ECF No. 315. This

2

court has reviewed defendant’s motion and now GRANTS it for the following reasons.

3
4

II.

DISCUSSION
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of California Local

5

Rules require the redaction of documents containing an individual’s personal information, with

6

the exception of the following: “(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and

7

taxpayer-identification number; (2) the year of the individual’s birth; (3) the minor’s initials; and

8

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a); Local Rule 140(a)

9

(prohibits home addresses in addition to the prohibitions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1)). Both rules

10

authorize the redaction of such information without a court order. Federal Rule of Civil

11

Procedure 52(d) and Local Rule 141 provide for sealing of documents that qualify.

12

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public

13

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

14

Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). While “the right to inspect and

15

copy judicial records is not absolute,” access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly

16

justifiable reasons: to protect against “‘gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public

17

scandal,’” or to preclude court dockets from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements,” or

18

“sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at 598

19

(citations omitted). As the Ninth Circuit instructs, a “strong presumption in favor of access” to

20

the record governs in a court of law unless the case or a part of it qualifies for one of the relatively

21

few exceptions “traditionally [] kept secret,” with secrecy allowed for good reasons. Foltz v.

22

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134−35 (9th Cir. 2003).

23

When a party moves to seal a record, the court looks to the underlying motion and

24

determines whether it is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto

25

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If the motion is more than

26

tangentially related to the merits of the case, a party seeking to seal the record must satisfy the

27

“stringent” compelling reasons standard. Id. at 1096. Applying this standard, “a court may seal

28

records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling,
2

1

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture,’” and “then ‘conscientiously balance[s] the

2

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.’”

3

Id. at 1096−97 (first alteration in original) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

4

F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)).

5

When a motion is unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of the case,

6

the good cause standard, which is an “exception” to the “presumptive” compelling reasons

7

standard, applies. Id. at 1097−98. To establish good cause, a party must show “for each

8

particular document it seeks to protect . . . that specific prejudice or harm will result” absent

9

sealing. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (citation omitted). “Broad allegations of harm,

10

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not satisfy the good cause

11

standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

The Eastern District of California has adopted rules to clarify procedures for

13

parties’ compliance with the law reviewed above. Local Rule 141 provides that documents may

14

be sealed only by a written order of the court after a party makes a particularized request to seal.

15

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. Local Rule

16

141(b) expressly requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or

17

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to

18

be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” The court’s own Standing

19

Order, available on its web page, and its Pretrial Scheduling Order issued in this case, ECF No.

20

128, emphasize the requirement that a party comply with the law and the rules in making any

21

sealing request, which they should do lightly and only rarely if at all. Here, realtor’s request to

22

seal is appropriate only to the extent it allows for complete, unredacted copies of documents to be

23

placed under seal concurrently with the filing of redacted copies to preserve the record. The

24

request to redact limited information, including social security numbers, addresses, full names

25

other than relator’s and birthdates, is consistent with both Local Rules and the Federal Rules of

26

Civil Procedure, and reflects the requirements placed by both on relator.

27
28
3

1

In sum, the court finds good cause for defendant’s filing of a REDACTED copy of

2

the documents for which a placeholder has been filed at ECF No. 318-2, with an unredacted copy

3

of the same documents filed UNDER SEAL concurrently.

4
5

III.

CONCLUSION
Relator’s request to seal or redact is GRANTED to the extent explained above.

6

The court directs defendant to file the redacted documents within seven (7) days of this order, and

7

to concurrently provide the Clerk of Court with the corresponding unredacted documents for

8

filing under seal. This order resolves the in camera request filed as noticed by ECF No. 344; the

9

Clerk of Court is directed to file the in camera request and its supporting documents under seal to

10
11
12

preserve the record with respect to the request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 15, 2020.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4