Harper, et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC et al
Filing
110
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/12/2021 DENYING #96 and #99 Requests to Seal Documents. (Huang, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
14
LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL
SINCLAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated and all aggrieved
employees,
17
18
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
TO SEAL DOCUMENTS;
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
Plaintiffs,
15
16
No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
19
20
21
----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Lionel Harper and Daniel Sinclair brought
22
this putative class action against defendant Charter
23
Communications, LLC (“Charter”) alleging various violations of
24
the California Labor and Business and Professions Code.
25
First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 45).)
26
plaintiffs have filed requests to seal documents in support of
27
their filings related to Charter’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
28
(See Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. (Docket No. 96-1); Pls.’ Req. to
1
(See
Both Charter and
1
Seal Docs. (Docket No. 99-1).)
2
I.
Charter’s Request
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Charter requests that the court seal the following
documents:
1. Documents related to the training
provided to Account Executives, which are
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrea
Benner (“Benner Declaration”) in support of
Charter’s Motion;
2. Signed commission plan that applied to
Plaintiff Lionel Harper during his
employment with Charter, which is attached
as Exhibit D to the Benner Declaration;
3. Signed commission plans that applied to
Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair during his
employment with Charter, which are attached
as Exhibit F to the Benner Declaration;
4. The Synygy training Charter provided to
Account Executives, which is attached as
Exhibit G to the Benner Declaration;
5. Charter’s “Standards of Performance”,
which is attached as Exhibit H to the Benner
Declaration;
6. The October 19, 2015 corrective action
issued to Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair, which
is attached as Exhibit I to the Benner
Declaration;
7. The April 4, 2016 corrective action
issued to Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair, which
is attached as Exhibit J to the Benner
Declaration;
8. The Incident Investigation Report, which
is attached as Exhibit K to the Benner
Declaration;
9. The January 5, 2018 written corrective
action issued to Plaintiff Lionel Harper,
which is attached as Exhibit M to the Benner
Declaration; and
10. The Incident Investigation Report and
further corrective action related to
Plaintiff Lionel Harper’s subpar
performance, which is attached as Exhibit N
2
1
to the Benner Declaration.
2
(Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. (Docket No. 96-1).)
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the
3
4
burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public
5
access.
6
1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
7
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
8
general history of access and the public policies favoring
9
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling
10
judicial process.”
11
on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing
12
interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records
13
secret.
14
Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).
In ruling
Id. at 1179.
Defendant argues that the above-listed documents should
15
be sealed because (1) Charter has designated the documents as
16
confidential and subject to the parties’ Stipulation and
17
Protective Order (Docket No. 43); (2) the content of the
18
documents includes confidential and proprietary information,
19
including Charter’s internal training documents and other
20
employee policies, commission plans and other sales-related
21
documents; (3) Charter has maintained such documents as
22
confidential as part of its regular business practices; and (4)
23
there is no clear public interest in publicly disclosing the
24
information contained in these documents.
25
This court has previously pointed out that a
26
confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se
27
constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs
28
the interests of public disclosure and access.
3
See Feb. 5, 2016
1
Order at 3, Wilson v. Conair Corp., Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00894; Oct.
2
8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib.,
3
Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry
4
Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No.
5
1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico,
6
Civ. No. 2:14-02152.
7
signed the stipulated protective order does not change this
8
principle.
The fact that the assigned magistrate judge
9
Beyond its contention that the documents are subject to
10
the parties’ Stipulation and Protective Order, Charter offers the
11
general assertion that the content of the documents includes
12
confidential and proprietary information, including Charter’s
13
internal training documents and other employee policies,
14
commission plans, and other sales-related documents.
15
Charter provides no further guidance as to what sensitive
16
information these internal training documents, commission plans,
17
or “other sales-related documents” contain that would merit an
18
order sealing the documents from public view.
19
defendant has submitted to the court total 211 pages; it is not
20
the court’s burden to parse this substantial amount of material
21
to determine which portions contain sensitive information.
22
Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s,
23
London, Civ. No. 1:14–00953 WBS SAB, 2015 WL 5608241, at *2 (E.D.
24
Cal. Sep. 23, 2015).
However,
The documents
See
25
The court therefore finds that Charter has not provided
26
a compelling reason to shield the submitted documents from public
27
scrutiny.
28
seal.
Accordingly, the court must deny Charter’s request to
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II.
Plaintiffs’ Request
Plaintiffs request that the court seal the following
documents:
1. Business Account Executive job description, which is
Exhibit 5 to the Soderstrom Declaration;
2. Account Executive job description, which is Exhibit
6 to the Soderstrom Declaration;
3. Charter’s August 22, 2017 “Standards of
Performance,” which is Exhibit 8 to the Soderstrom
Declaration;
4. Charter’s July 2017 “Timekeeping Policy,” which is
Exhibit 9 to the Soderstrom Declaration;
5. Charter’s December 2016 BAE New Hire Training
“Participant Guide,” which is Exhibit 10 to the
Soderstrom Declaration;
6. Charter’s January 2017 New Hire Training
“Participant Guide,” which is Exhibit 11 to the
Soderstrom Declaration;
7. Charter’s January 2017 Account Executive New Hire
“Spectrum Sales Success Process,” which is Exhibit 12
to the Soderstrom Declaration;
8. Charter’s November 2014 Sales New Hire “Participant
Playbook,” which is Exhibit 13 to the Soderstrom
Declaration;
9. Excerpts of a spreadsheet showing Sinclair’s
commission payments, which is Exhibit 14 to the
Soderstrom Declaration;
10. Charter’s October 22, 2017 Commission Plan Addendum
with Amended “Attachment A” commissions schedule, which
is Exhibit 16 to the Soderstrom Declaration;
11. Harper’s Salesforce “Leads List Report,” which is
Exhibit 17 to the Soderstrom Declaration; and
(Pls.’ Req. to Seal Docs.)
Plaintiffs offer almost exactly the same four reasons
26
why these documents should be sealed as Charter.
27
Plaintiffs merely add “Charter’s actual and potential customers”
28
as an example of proprietary information purportedly contained
5
(See id.)
1
within the documents.
2
provide the court with 203 pages of documents with little
3
guidance as to which portions contain sensitive information.
4
Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated above, the court
5
must deny plaintiffs’ request to seal.
6
1178.
7
(See id.)
Like Charter, plaintiffs
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Charter and plaintiffs’
8
request to seal documents (Docket Nos. 96, 99) be, and the same
9
hereby are, DENIED.
10
Dated:
February 12, 2021
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?