Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting in part and denying in part 86 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIE GAUDIN,

Case No. 11-cv-01663-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: ECF No. 86

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Defendant moves to file under seal exhibits to declarations supporting its opposition to

13
14

class certification, and to redact portions of the memorandum in support of its opposition which

15

refer to those exhibits. ECF No. 86 (“Motion”). Defendant has filed a declaration in support of

16

sealing certain material. Declaration of Veronica Monsivais (“Monsivais Decl.”), ECF No. 86-1.

17

Plaintiff has not filed any declaration in support of sealing, and the time for doing so has now

18

passed. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN

19

PART Defendant’s Motion.

20

I.

21

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

22

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all

23

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.

24

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation

25

marks omitted).

26

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that

27

(1) establishes that the document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

28

otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only

1

of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows

2

a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under

3

seal.” Id. Additional requirements apply depending on whether the party seeks to seal an entire

4

document, only portions of a document, or a document that was designated as confidential by

5

another party. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b)-(d).

6

With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong

7

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a

8

party seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, the presumption can be

9

overcome only if the party presents “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings
that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172 at 1178-79 (internal citation omitted). “The mere fact that the

12

production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

13

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. Courts in this

14

District have applied the “compelling reasons” standard to sealing requests concerning any

15

motions that “cannot fairly be characterized as ‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

16

underlying cause of action.’” See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2012 WL

17

2936432, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to a sealing

18

request because the preliminary injunction motion to which it related “implicate[s] the very core of

19

Apple's claims and Apple's desired relief in bringing suit against Samsung”); Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin

20

Int'l, Inc., 2012 WL 6019754, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (applying a ‘compelling reasons’

21

standard to pretrial motions related to the merits of the case).

22

On the other hand, when a party seeks to file previously sealed discovery materials in

23

connection with a non-dispositive motion, the sealing party need not meet the ‘compelling

24

reasons’ standard “because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

25

underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that

26

case, a party need only make a “particularized showing under the good cause standard of Rule

27

26(c)” to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1180 (internal citation and internal quotation

28

marks omitted). A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or
2

1

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(c).
A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to

3
4

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.

5

2374 (U.S. 2012).

6

II.

DISCUSSION
The “vast majority” of courts in this Circuit apply the “good cause” standard to motions for

7

class certification. In re High- Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D.

9

Cal. Jan. 15, 2013). The Court agrees that this is the proper standard, because class certification is

10

not a dispositive motion, and because the issues addressed in a class certification motion are often

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.
In its declaration, Defendant maintains that certain of the material contains customer data

12
13

and sensitive internal commercial information. Monsivais Decl. The Court concludes that there is

14

good cause to seal this material, since exposing it to the public would subject Defendant to undue

15

burden or expense. The Court concludes that, for this reason, the material is “entitled to protection

16

under the law,” and further concludes that Defendant’s proposal is “narrowly tailored to seek

17

sealing only of sealable material,” satisfying the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
The Motion also seeks to seal an exhibit to the Declaration of Laila Abou-Rahme in

18
19

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. This

20

information was apparently designated confidential by Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has filed no

21

declaration in support of sealing, and the time to do so has now passed. See Civil Local Rule 79-

22

5(d). Therefore, that document “will be made part of the public record.” Id.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
3

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court hereby GRANTS the Motion insofar it seeks to seal documents identified as

3

protectable by Defendant in the Monsivais Declaration, and to redact references to those

4

documents. The Court hereby DENIES the Motion insofar as it seeks to file Exhibit 4 to the

5

Abou-Rahme Declaration under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Plaintiff shall re-

6

submit its opposition to class certification and supporting material to conform with this order.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4