Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al

Filing 204

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 196 , 202 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. Public versions to be filed no later than September 9, 2015. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LINDSAY KAMAKAHI,

Case No. 11-cv-01781-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Re: Dkt. Nos. 196, 202

Defendants.

11
12

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

I.

13

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal

14

Rules of Civil Procedure, which Defendants oppose. Pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rule

15

79-5, Defendants and Plaintiffs have each moved to file documents related to that motion under

16

seal. See Defs.’ Mot. to Seal (dkt. 196); Pls.’ Mot. to Seal (dkt. 202). Plaintiffs also filed a

17

response to Defendants’ motion—which is based on Plaintiffs having designated certain

18

documents as confidential—pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Dkt. 198. For the reasons

19

stated below, each sealing motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The parties

20

shall file public versions of documents consistent with this Order no later than September 9,

21

2015.

22

II.

23

ANALYSIS
The parties are familiar with the local rules and applicable legal standard for filing under

24

seal as set forth in the Court’s orders addressing sealing motions in the context of Plaintiffs’ initial

25

motion for class certification. See, e.g., dkts. 156, 160, 164. In brief, a party seeking to file

26

documents under seal must generally demonstrate compelling reasons for sealing, but the standard

27

is relaxed to require only a showing of good cause to seal discovery documents submitted in the

28

context of a non-dispositive motion. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices

1

Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012).
Defendants’ Motion to Seal Opposition and Monts Declaration

2

A.

3

Defendants move to seal their Opposition to Class Certification and six exhibits to the

4

Declaration of William Monts. Plaintiffs filed a response supporting Defendants’ motion as to the

5

exhibits and portions of the Opposition. For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ response and the

6

declaration accompanying that response, Defendants’ motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibits

7

1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.

8
9

Plaintiffs do not oppose filing Defendants’ Opposition in the public record, except that
Plaintiffs propose to redact two sentences at page 16, lines 17 through 21. Plaintiffs contend that
this passage “[d]iscloses compensation practices of a donor agency.” Dkt. 198-1 at 2. Because

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the passage does not disclose the actual rate of compensation paid by the agency, the Court finds

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs’ concern unfounded. Defendants’ motion to seal the Opposition is DENIED.
Plaintiffs present the following justifications for sealing Exhibit 4:
Discussion of donor agency’s compensation and other business
practices, as well as discussion of private financial information on
private, members-only internet forum. Discussion of non-public
personal information, including racial and ethnic information.

16

Id. The fact that discussion occurred on a purportedly private internet forum does not inherently

17

warrant sealing—private communication, such as letters or email, is routinely produced and filed

18

publicly in litigation. Further, most of Exhibit 4 does not consist of the sort of sensitive

19

information identified in Plaintiffs’ explanation. The Court finds good cause for only limited

20

redactions to this exhibit, specifically the compensation that Wells actually received for past

21

donations and, because it is entirely irrelevant to this action, Wells’ “racial and ethnic

22

information” included on the final page of the exhibit. Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibit 4 is

23

therefore GRANTED IN PART, and Defendants are instructed to file a public version of Exhibit 4

24

with redactions.

25

Exhibit 7 consists of an email from Wells to her father, forwarding a marketing newsletter

26

from a donor agency. Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibit 7 is GRANTED IN PART. Although

27

the first page (Wells’s message to her father) may be redacted in its entirety for the reasons stated

28
2

1

in Plaintiffs’ declaration, the Court finds no basis for sealing the remainder (the marketing

2

newsletter), which shall be filed in the public record.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Reply and McClellan Reply Declaration

3

B.

4

Plaintiffs move to seal certain passages of their Reply, as well as Exhibits 1, 2, and 5 of

5

Michael McClellan’s declaration in support of the Reply. For the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’

6

motion to seal and supporting declaration, the motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits 1 and 2.
Plaintiffs argue that Exhibit 5 and the passages in the Reply should be sealed because they

8

“[d]isclose[] sensitive and confidential compensation and business practices of [a] donor agency.”

9

Dkt. 202-1 at 2. Rather than listing specific compensation amounts, these materials discuss only

10

whether the agency intends to comply with the $10,000 compensation limit that is at the heart of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

this litigation. The Court is not persuaded that the agency faces any significant competitive harm

12

through disclosure of these materials, and accordingly DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the

13

Reply and Exhibit 5.

14

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, both parties’ motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN

15
16

PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants are ORDERED to file their Opposition and redacted

17

versions of Exhibits 4 and 7 thereto in the public record no later than September 9, 2015.

18

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their Reply and Exhibit 5 thereto in the public record by the same

19

date.

20
21

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3