Bruno v. Equifax Credit Information Services, LLC, et al.
Filing
167
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/26/18, GRANTING defendant Geneva Inc.'s #127 Motion for Reconsideration, and those portions of the Magistrate Judge's #122 Order deeming Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions admitted, and requiring Geneva Financial Services, Inc., to reimburse plaintiff for expenses, are VACATED and set aside. Plaintiff's #131 Request to Seal is DENIED without prejudice. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
DANIEL BRUNO, Individually
and on behalf of others
similarly situated,
13
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 2:17-327 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO
SEAL
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendant.
18
19
Plaintiff Daniel Bruno, individually and on behalf of
20
others similarly situated, originally filed this action against
21
Geneva Financial Services, LLC (“Geneva LLC”); Equifax
22
Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”); John McGinley; Andy
23
Mitchell; and REBS Supply Inc., d/b/a REBS Marketing, Inc.
24
(“REBS”), for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
25
U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
26
Financial Services, Inc.’s (“Geneva Inc.”) Request for
27
Reconsideration (Docket No. 127) and plaintiff’s Request to Seal
28
Documents (Docket No. 131).
Presently before the court is Geneva
1
1
I.
2
Motion for Reconsideration
This case is a procedural mess.
This court’s Order of
3
February 6, 2018, allowing plaintiff to file and serve an Amended
4
Complaint (Docket No. 119) was intended, at least in part, to
5
allow the parties to clean up that mess.
6
hearing on January 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Brennan had no way
7
of knowing of that Order, and his subsequent Order After Hearing,
8
on February 8, 2018 (Docket No. 122), made no mention of it.
9
would be unfair in light of this court’s February 6, 2018 Order
At the time of his
It
10
to deem defendant Geneva, Inc. to have admitted plaintiff’s First
11
Set of Requests for Admissions, which were served before Geneva,
12
Inc. was a party to this case.
13
prejudice any party simply because of a procedural
14
misunderstanding or technicality.
15
grant Geneva Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration and vacate the
16
relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Brennan’s Order After
17
Hearing (Docket No. 122.)
18
II.
19
The court does not want to
Accordingly, the court will
Motion to Seal
Plaintiff has also submitted a Request to Seal
20
Documents.
21
seal portions of its Second Amended Complaint as well as Exhibits
22
A, G, H, I, and J in their entirety.
23
(Docket No. 131.)
In this motion, plaintiff moves to
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(a), “[d]ocuments may be
24
sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing
25
required by applicable law.”
26
standards generally govern motions to seal documents.”
27
Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).
28
context of requests to seal “dispositive pleadings . . . and
E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a).
2
“Two
Pintos v.
In the
1
[their] related attachments,” the court is directed to apply a
2
“‘compelling reasons’ standard.”
3
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006).
4
of nondispositive motions and records attached to such motions,
5
by contrast, the Ninth Circuit has held that the requesting party
6
need only meet a “‘good cause’ standard [because] the public’s
7
interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with
8
equal force to non-dispositive materials.”
9
678; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.
10
Kamakana v. City & County of
In the context
Pintos, 605 F.3d at
As the parties are not seeking to seal any dispositive
11
motions, the court applies the “good cause” standard to
12
plaintiff’s request.
13
“good cause” standard is not as rigorous as the “compelling
14
reasons” standard, a “party asserting good cause bears the
15
burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of
16
showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no
17
protective order is granted.”
18
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); see Kamakana, 447
19
F.3d at 1180 (“A ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more,
20
satisfy a ‘compelling reasons’ test.”).
21
given specific reasons why any particular information in the
22
Second Amended Complaint or the specified attachments should be
23
sealed, beyond merely stating that disclosure could “be a
24
detriment to Equifax.”
25
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
While the
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Here, plaintiff has not
(Pl.’s Req. to Seal at 2.)
In January 2018, the parties stipulated to a Protective
26
Order of Confidentiality and to Protect Privileged Materials,
27
which was signed by Magistrate Judge Brennan on February 7, 2018.
28
(Docket No. 121.)
That order was to apply to all “Protected
3
1
Material,” which was defined as any discovery material that was
2
designated as “confidential” by any party.
3
documents that plaintiff now seeks to seal have been designated
4
“confidential” by Equifax.
5
(Id. at 4.)
The
This court recognizes that generally “when a court
6
grants a protective order for information produced during
7
discovery, it already has determined that ‘good cause’ exists to
8
protect this information from being disclosed to the public by
9
balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
10
confidentiality.”
11
Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002).
12
“[b]ecause the parties had simply stipulated to the protective
13
order, a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ to keep the
14
documents under seal had never been made to the court.”
15
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176.
16
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.
However,
Further, the Protective Order explained that “Protected
17
Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order
18
authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at
19
issue.”
20
order requested that the parties obtain a court order to file
21
materials under seal . . . [plaintiff] should have been on notice
22
that confidential categorization . . . under the protective order
23
was not a guarantee of confidentiality, especially in the event
24
of a court filing.”
25
although magistrate Judge Brennan “expressly approved and entered
26
the protective order, the order contained no good cause findings
27
as to specific documents.”
28
(Pl.’s Req. to Seal at 15.)
Accordingly, because “the
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183.
Therefore,
(Id.)
Additionally, sealing this information may prevent the
4
1
public from understanding the basis upon which the court makes
2
its decisions, and plaintiff fails to explain how public
3
disclosure of the contents of its Second Amended Complaint and
4
attachments would cause harm to any of the parties, much less how
5
that harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.
6
at 1178-79.
7
of the protective order, plaintiff has not presented “good cause”
8
to rebut the presumption in favor of public access.
9
(citing Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1128).
10
See id.
Accordingly, the court concludes that, even in light
See id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Geneva Inc.’s
11
Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 127) be, and the same
12
hereby is, GRANTED, and those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
13
Order of February 8, 2018 (Docket No. 122) deeming Plaintiff’s
14
First Set of Requests for Admissions admitted, and requiring
15
Geneva Financial Services, Inc. to reimburse plaintiff for
16
expenses, are hereby vacated and set aside.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Request to Seal
18
(Docket No. 131) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without
19
prejudice to the right of either party to submit a more tailored
20
request which specifically states the basis for sealing or
21
redacting these documents.
22
Dated:
April 26, 2018
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?