Bryan et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al

Filing 123

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/21/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 No. C 08-05221 SI CHARLES RIDGEWAY, et al., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES INC., 15 Defendant. / 16 17 Defendant has filed an administrative motion, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), to file under seal 18 documents submitted in support of defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Docket No. 111. 19 Defendant refers to the declaration of Jesse A. Cripps (previously filed as Docket No. 106 in support 20 of sealing exhibits referenced and quoted in plaintiff’s motion for class certification) to support its 21 motion to seal. 22 With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts 23 begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 24 Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in 25 connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling 26 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 27 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” 28 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive 1 motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 2 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly 3 tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local 4 Rule 79-5(b). Defendant’s motion for partial summary adjudication is non-dispositive, and so the “good 5 cause” standard applies. Defendant seeks to seal Exhibit 9 to the declaration of Jesse A. Cripps, filed in support of 7 defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Docket No. 111 ¶ 1. Defendant notes that Exhibit 8 9 to the Cripps Declaration is identical to Exhibit 2 to the Day Deposition – which defendant previously 9 sought to seal in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Id. ¶ 2. Instead of filing a 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 6 declaration in support of this motion to seal, defendant refers to the declaration it previously submitted 11 as Docket No. 106 in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Id. In the previously 12 filed declaration, defendant claimed the relevant exhibit contains communications and direction from 13 Wal-Mart to their employees regarding the meal and rest break policies, including the training for and 14 implementation of these policies. Docket No. 106 ¶ 8. Defendant again argues that public disclosure 15 of the information stands to cause Wal-Mart harm by giving third parties insight into confidential and 16 sensitive aspects of Wal-Mart’s business operations. Docket No. 111 ¶ 2. 17 Defendant’s assertion that public disclosure of the exhibit “stands to cause Wal-Mart harm by 18 giving third parties insight into the confidential and sensitive aspects of Wal-Mart’s business operations” 19 does not show a specific harm or prejudice and is overly-vague. This mere assertion is not enough to 20 overcome the strong presumption in favor of access. Defendant has failed to show good cause to file 21 the exhibit, in its entirety, under seal. 22 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the administrative motion to file under seal. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: May 21, 2014 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?