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)
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?