Richard Stafford v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc et al
Filing
121
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/18/2015 ORDERING 117 Request to Seal Document(s) filed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is DENIED. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RICHARD STAFFORD,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-01187-KJM-CKD
v.
ORDER
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 50 Inclusive,
Defendant.
16
17
Defendant Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. requests the sealing of several documents to be
18
19
submitted in support of plaintiff Richard Stafford’s motion for partial summary judgment.
20
Stafford submitted a notice of non-opposition. As explained below, the request is DENIED.
21
I.
22
BACKGROUND
Stafford is a former Dollar Tree employee. He alleges several claims under the
23
California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders. See generally Third Am.
24
Compl., ECF No. 102. In short, he alleges Dollar Tree did not provide him the meal and rest
25
breaks required by California law; did not pay correct minimum, regular and overtime wages; did
26
not keep or provide him with accurate records and wage statements; and did not pay him wages
27
when they were due. See id. ¶¶ 14–27.
28
1
1
Before the court is Dollar Tree’s request to seal the following documents:
2
“(1) summary reports of Plaintiff Richard Stafford’s bonus payments and overtime worked,
3
(2) scheduling and clock punch data for certain Dollar Tree stores, and (3) data from a
4
spreadsheet identifying the date and time that Plaintiff clocked in and out of work.” Req. Seal,
5
ECF No. 117. Each was produced during discovery as confidential under a discovery phase
6
protective order entered in this case. See Protective Order, ECF No. 67. Stafford’s expert
7
witness relied on them in preparing his expert report, and the parties have informed the court
8
Stafford intends to file the report and supporting materials publicly alongside a motion for partial
9
summary judgment. Dollar Tree explains the materials “contain confidential information and
10
trade secrets related to Dollar Tree’s operations and financial data, and contain personnel
11
information protected by the right to privacy contained in the California Constitution.” Id.
12
II.
13
LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order
14
of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” The request to seal “shall set forth
15
the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or
16
category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.”
17
Id. 141(b). “[A] party may submit an opposition . . . within three days of the date of service . . . .”
18
Id. 141(c). “The opposition shall not be filed . . . .” Id.
19
The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.”
20
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records
21
be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced
22
with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption favor of access to court records.”
23
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In the context of a
24
dispositive motion, such as one for partial summary judgment, the party seeking to seal or redact
25
a document “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption” by “articulat[ing]
26
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
27
access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the
28
judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
2
1
(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 and Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995))
2
(quotation marks and alterations omitted). Commonly cited “compelling reasons” include the
3
need to avoid “private spite,” “public scandal,” and to prevent a court’s records from becoming
4
“reservoirs of libelous statement for press consumption,” or “sources of business information that
5
might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589 (citations and internal
6
quotation marks omitted). Hypothetical or conjectural harm are not compelling reasons.
7
Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. A document may be the subject of a previously entered protective
8
order and yet be disclosed when attached to a dispositive motion. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
9
1183.
10
11
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Business Information
12
Dollar Tree requests its overtime reports for Stafford, staffing data, and punch
13
report data be sealed as confidential business information. Not all business information is so
14
confidential or sensitive that it must be sealed. See, e.g., Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-
15
04910, 2014 WL 7368594, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2014) (declining to seal, for example,
16
information about a litigant’s “product design and source code and highly confidential and
17
competitively sensitive business information including usage data,” even though the litigant
18
argued the information was “likely to cause harm to [its] business if known by competitors”);
19
GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd., No. 14-00126, 2014 WL 2117349, at *1 (D. Ariz.
20
May 21, 2014) (“[A] party’s allegations that material is ‘confidential’ or ‘business information’
21
are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material unless the party proves
22
the existence of compelling reasons such as those set forth in Kamakana. . . . “[O]nly in
23
extremely limited circumstances will confidential information actually merit the sealing of court
24
records.” (citations omitted)). Trade secrets, specific pricing terms, royalty rates, and similar data
25
are more commonly sealed. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir.
26
2008) (unpublished); see also Herron v. Best Buy Stores, LP, No. 12-02103, 2015 WL 5330271,
27
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2015) (sealing a defendant’s internal valuations of products and brands,
28
3
1
developed after expenditure of “great amounts of time and money,” which were unavailable to
2
competitors and at the heart of the defendant’s business).
3
Here, Dollar Tree explains that disclosure of its compensation structure (for
4
example, the amount of bonuses paid to employees) and its staffing methods would be valuable to
5
its competitors. This explanation is not “compelling.” The court appreciates Dollar Tree’s
6
fiercely competitive habitat, the discount retail environment, but Dollar Tree has described no
7
unique or innovative theory of employee incentives or staffing, and the court can surmise none
8
from the documents provided. Moreover, the central disputes revolve around these data: whether
9
employees were paid lawful wages; whether employees worked without breaks; and whether they
10
received payment on time. The public interest in understanding this litigation outweighs the need
11
to protect the business records Dollar Tree identifies from public scrutiny.
12
13
B.
Personnel Information
Dollar Tree also explains that the documents it requests to seal include the names,
14
schedules, wages, and other information about its employees. The California Constitution
15
protects a person’s right to privacy, and this protection extends to personnel files. San Diego
16
Trolley, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 87 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 1097 (2001). Federal courts have also
17
recognized that employees’ personnel records may in some cases be sealed, even when attached
18
to a dispositive motion. See, e.g., TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Technologies Ltd., No.
19
09-1531, 2011 WL 5190264, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov. 1, 2011). This is not always the case. See, e.g.,
20
Stout v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. 11-6186, 2012 WL 6025770, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4,
21
2012) (“Courts are split on whether employees’ privacy interests justify shielding their
22
performance evaluations from public view.”).
23
Here, Dollar Tree argues only that the documents contain personnel information.
24
The materials submitted include the names, titles, and historical work schedules of several
25
employees. Only Stafford’s pay rates are identifiable. No performance evaluations, medical
26
records, phone numbers, addresses, or similarly sensitive information appear in the documents in
27
question. As described above, when and how long Dollar Tree’s employees worked are central
28
4
1
disputes in this litigation. The need to protect its employees’ privacy does not outweigh the need
2
for disclosure in this case.
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
4
The request is DENIED.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: September 18, 2015.
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?