Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 242

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 236 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.12-cv-00632-JSC ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 236 Defendant. 12 13 This class action revolves around a service Defendant Trans Union, LLC provides to its 14 customers which identifies persons whose names match individuals (known as Specially 15 Designated Nationals or SDNs) on the United States government’s list of terrorists, drug 16 traffickers, and others with whom Americans are prohibited from doing business. The service is 17 known as an OFAC Name Screen Alert or OFAC Alert. At particular issue in this case are Trans 18 Union’s business practices during a six month period from January to July 2011. The Court 19 recently denied Trans Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the accompanying 20 administrative motions to file portions of the briefs, declarations, and exhibits thereto under seal. 21 (Dkt. No. 233.) The Court concluded that Trans Union had failed to demonstrate that sealing was 22 appropriate, but granted Trans Union leave to submit a new sealing request which is narrowly 23 tailored and comported with Local Rule 79-5 and the requirements for sealing in the dispositive 24 motion context. Trans Union’s renewed administrative motion to seal and Plaintiff’s opposition 25 thereto are now pending before the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 236 & 237.) The Court grants the motion in 26 part and denies the motion in part as set forth below 27 LEGAL STANDARD 28 There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. 1 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). A party must demonstrate “compelling 2 reasons” to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 3 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Examples of compelling reasons include “the use 4 of court records for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 5 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. “[S]ources of business information that 6 might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy” may also give rise to a compelling reason to seal, 7 Nixon v. Warner Comm’cns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), as may pricing, profit, and customer 8 usage information kept confidential by a company that could be used to the company’s 9 competitive disadvantage, see Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The “compelling reasons” standard is a strict one. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. “An 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor 12 would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Ochoa v. McDonald’s 13 Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD, 2015 WL 3545921, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015) (quoting Hodges 14 v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)). The 15 court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 16 judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain 17 judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 18 its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal 19 citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 20 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2374 (2012). 21 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set forth in 22 Civil Local Rule 79–5. The rule permits sealing only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the 23 document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 24 protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(b). It requires the parties to “narrowly tailor” their 25 requests only to the sealable material. Id. at 79–5(d). Thus, although sometimes it may be 26 appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever possible a party must redact. See 27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue 28 of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., 11–cv–00410–YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, 2 1 at *2–3 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact 2 confidential information). Whatever the basis, the court “must articulate [the] reasoning or 3 findings underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc., 658 F.3d at 1162. 4 DISCUSSION 5 The Court previously granted in part and denied in part two motions to seal filed in support 6 of the parties’ class certification briefing. (Dkt. Nos. 121 & 126.) Trans Union then filed motions 7 to seal in connection with the parties’ summary judgment briefing which relied in large part on 8 these prior orders as the basis for sealing. (Dkt. Nos. 218, 221, and 227.) At the hearing on the 9 motion for summary judgment, the Court denied Trans Union’s motions to seal without prejudice to renewal. In doing so, the Court noted that Trans Union had not come close to meeting the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 compelling need standard and denied the motion without prejudice to Trans Union submitting a 12 narrowly tailored revised motion with supporting declarations. (Dkt. No. 239 at 29:5-31:21.) 13 Trans Union’s renewed motion to seal fails to comport with the Court’s explicit instruction 14 to narrowly tailor its request for sealing. As with Trans Union’s prior motions to seal, it 15 proposes sealing of large swaths of the parties’ summary judgment briefing, Trans Union’s expert 16 reports, and deposition testimony regarding Trans Union’s matching procedures during the class 17 period. Indeed, of the 20 exhibits submitted with the summary judgment briefing that Trans 18 Union seeks to seal in whole or part, 15 have the exact same proposed redactions, which in the 19 case of the expert reports, include large sections of the opinions. Further, while Trans Union has 20 omitted a line here and there, it has also inexplicably added material to its sealing motion— 21 material which it did not previously seek to seal, and which as a result, it already filed on the 22 public docket. Compare Dkt. No. 236 at 6:22 (seeking sealing of 81:15-89) with 222 at 4:6 23 (seeking sealing of 81:15, 82, 86-89); Compare Dkt. No. 236 at 8:2 (seeking sealing of page 14 of 24 the opposition at lines 19-20) with Dkt. No. 221-3 at page 14 (redacted version of opposition brief 25 with lines 19-20 unredacted, redacting instead lines 6-10 and 23-25); Compare Dkt. No. 236 at 8:8 26 (seeking sealing of page 31, lines 3-7) with Dkt. No. 221-3 at page 31 (no redactions). 27 28 Trans Union has also failed to tie any of its arguments or declarations to any particular documents. Instead, Trans Union apparently makes its trade secret and intellectual property 3 1 arguments as to all 20 documents which it seeks to seal and the briefs themselves. This fails to 2 satisfy the rigorous compelling reasons standard. “Simply mentioning a general category of 3 privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 4 satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 5 Further, Trans Union’s motion fails to provide specific and compelling reasons in support 6 of its request for sealing. Indeed, while Trans Union has marginally flushed out its trade secret 7 and intellectual property arguments, it has failed to make a particularized showing regarding what 8 the trade secret or intellectual property actually is. Instead, Trans Union argues that release of the 9 information “would allow competitors to gain an unearned insight into TransUnion’s product development strategies and Accuity’s software development over time.” (Dkt. No. 236 at 10:15- 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 16.) But neither the motion nor the attached declaration of Trans Union Vice President Michael 12 O’Connell show what information or what trade secret it is particularly trying to protect. Instead, 13 Mr. O’Connell generically attests that “[t]he materials are extremely valuable to Trans Union 14 because they contain discussions about consumer disputes and related policies and procedures, 15 descriptions of the structure and functioning of Trans Union’s OFAC product, details regarding 16 TransUnion’s internal systems processes and descriptions of TransUnion’s work with third party 17 service provider, Accuity, to modify its OFAC product.” (Dkt. No. 236-3 at ¶ 3.) Likewise, while 18 Mr. O’Connell attests that the documents contain “important technical details regarding the 19 operation and programming of the relevant technology,” he does not identify which of the 20 20 exhibits actually contain technical details and no technical or programming information is 21 apparent upon the court’s review of the exhibits. Nor does Mr. O’Connell’s declaration state how 22 a competitor could use this information, most of which is old as it pertains to Trans Union’s 23 practices before and during the class period in 2010-2011. See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name 24 & Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 09-CV-01967 CW NC, 2013 WL 3014138, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 25 17, 2013) (“This document is eight years old, and NCAA fails to articulate what specific harm an 26 outdated document will have on its current or future operations.”) 27 28 At oral argument, Trans Union suggested that it was concerned about “maintaining the details of how the algorithm works today.” (Dkt. No. 239 at 30:2-4.) But an algorithm is “a step4 1 by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer.” 2 MERRIAM–WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, https://www.merriam- 3 webster.com/dictionary/algorithm (lasted visited April 26, 2017); Dudum v. Arntz, 640 F.3d 1098, 4 1107 n.16 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An algorithm is any well-defined computational procedure that takes 5 some value, or set of values, as input and produces some value, or set of values, as output. An 6 algorithm is thus a sequence of computational steps that transform the input into the output.”) 7 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). That Trans Union uses an individual’s name and 8 date of birth to generate its OFAC Alert is neither a “step-by-step procedure” nor a “defined 9 computational procedure.” 10 Trans Union has thus failed to demonstrate that this information is trade secret. See, e.g., United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 12 2013)( “[a]n unsupported assertion of unfair advantage to competitors without explaining how a 13 competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage is insufficient.”); Welle v. 14 Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 3:12–cv–3016 EMC (KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013)( “although [defendant] identifies the information at issue as proprietary 16 and confidential, it does not provide reasons beyond the boilerplate references to competitive 17 disadvantage if the information were publicly available.”); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe 18 Sys. Inc., No. 12–cv–1971–CW, 2013 WL 4049686, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2013) (denying 19 sealing where party “failed to state what harm [it] would experience if this material were publicly 20 disclosed or to provide any specific reasons, supported by facts, that could outweigh the public 21 policy favoring public access to court filings.”). 22 Likewise, the Declaration of Brent Newman, the Executive Vice President of third-party 23 Accuity, fails to show how the information contained in the exhibits constitutes Accuity’s trade 24 secrets. (Dkt. No. 236-1.) Mr. Newman attests that the portions of his deposition testimony cited 25 by the parties and their experts, and attached to the summary judgment briefing, “concern 26 Accuity’s internal systems processes, policies and procedures, and matching logic which are 27 strictly confidential and proprietary” because a “competitor could use these processes and 28 procedures to duplicate for their customers, the data products and solutions Accuity provides to its 5 1 subscriber.” (Id. at ¶ 12.) A review of Mr. Newman’s deposition testimony, however, fails to 2 reveal information that would provide a competitor specific insight into how to replicate Accuity’s 3 software—that Accuity uses rules and filtering technology is not a trade secret. What exactly each 4 of the rules and filters are and how they operate might be, but Mr. Newman’s deposition testimony 5 did not contain that level of specificity. Information regarding the name of Accuity’s product and 6 its features (i.e., the type of matching it provides) is a far cry from the sort of technical information 7 which a competitor would need to replicate Accuity’s products. The same is true with respect to 8 information regarding Accuity’s customer relations policies and practices. The deposition 9 testimony does not contain specific information regarding Accuity’s customer relations and polices; that Accuity attempts to respond to customer needs on an individualized basis is not a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 competitive secret. Finally, as with Trans Union’s claim of trade secret, the information regarding 12 Accuity’s products is likewise stale as it relates to Accuity’s systems six to seven years ago. 13 Finally, Trans Union’s renewed motion to seal advances an entirely new argument 14 suggesting that “keeping the details of Trans Union’s structure and functioning confidential is of 15 paramount importance” because if the information was “made publicly available, there is a risk 16 that an SDNs could avoid delivery of a valid result.” (Dkt. No. 236 at 10:25-26, 11:4-5.) Trans 17 Union, however, offers no evidence which suggests that there is any actual risk that a SDN could 18 figure out how to game the system based on the type of non-particularized information contained 19 in the parties’ summary judgment briefing. 20 Thus, as discussed in more detail below, the Court largely denies Trans Union’s motion to 21 seal except where the request has been narrowly tailored to only seek sealing of material that 22 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. 23 24 *** Trans Union seeks to seal portions of its motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 218-5), 25 exhibits to the Declaration of Stephen J. Newman (Dkt. No. 218-6), Plaintiff’s Opposition brief 26 (Dkt. No. 221-4), exhibits to the Declaration of John Soumilas (Dkt. No. 221-5), Trans Union’s 27 Reply brief (Dkt. No 227-4), and exhibits to the Second Declaration of Stephen J Newman (Dkt. 28 No. 227-5). Trans Union has resubmitted all these documents with its renewed motion to seal and 6 1 filed the exhibits submitted with the moving papers, opposition, and reply collectively under one 2 exhibit, the labeling of which corresponds to the exhibit labels used for the documents attached to 3 the original Newman and Soumilas Declarations. Because the Court’s order denying Trans 4 Union’s motion for summary judgment referred to the originally filed motion and exhibits, the 5 Court has included citation to both versions of the documents below although it notes that they are 6 largely identical. 7 1. Jaco Sadie Expert Report, Exhibit A, Dkt. Nos. 218-8/221-37/236-7 8 Trans Union seeks sealing of portions of the Sadie Report which address Accuity’s 9 Synonyms product and changes Trans Union made to its OFAC Alert product prior to and following the class period. Trans Union has failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for sealing 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 these portions of the Sadie Report. In particular, Trans Union has offered no specific showing as 12 to how it would be competitively disadvantaged through disclosure of this information, much of 13 which is no longer relevant because Trans Union by its own admission no longer uses Accuity’s 14 Synonym’s product. The “compelling reasons” standard is a strict one. “An unsupported assertion 15 of unfair advantage to competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information 16 to obtain an unfair advantage is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 17 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations 18 omitted). In addition, as discussed above, Accuity has likewise failed to demonstrate that 19 information regarding Accuity referenced in the Sadie Report reveals Accuity’s trade secrets or 20 other confidential information. 21 2. Francine Cronshaw Expert Report, Exhibit A, Dkt. Nos. 218-8/236-7 22 Trans Union seeks sealing of portions of Ms. Cronshaw’s expert report which address how 23 Trans Union’s OFAC Name Screen Alert product worked during the class period. As with the 24 portions of the Sadie Report that Trans Union seeks to seal, Trans Union has failed to offer any 25 specifics as to how Trans Union would be competitively disadvantaged through disclosure of this 26 information. Such a showing is particularly important here as Ms. Cronshaw’s testimony relates 27 to how Trans Union’s product worked in 2011, not how it works now. “[A] party’s allegations 28 that material is “confidential” or “business information” are insufficient to justify sealing court 7 1 records containing such material unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons for 2 sealing.” PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC, No. CV-12-01797-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 4722326, 3 at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014). Trans Union’s generic claim that this information is confidential, 4 proprietary business information and trade secret fails to do so. 5 3. Sadie Rebuttal Expert Report, Exhibit B, Dkt. Nos. 218-10/221-37/236-9 6 This exhibit contains the Rebuttal Expert Report of Jaco Sadie. For the reasons previously 7 stated with respect to the original Sadie Report, this information is not subject to sealing. 8 4. Declaration of Denise Briddell, Exhibit E, Dkt. Nos. 218-14/236-11 9 Ms. Briddell is the Director of Policy Management and Quality Services for Trans Union. In her declaration she sets out dispute activity by month for 2011 and 2012. Trans Union seeks 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 sealing of the per month numbers and the attached table reflecting the same. The number of 12 customer disputes is not confidential or trade secret, and thus, is not properly sealable. 13 5. Declaration of Michael O’Connell, Exhibit H, Dkt. Nos. 218-19/236-13 14 The portion of the O’Connell Declaration which Trans Union seeks to seal addresses 15 Accuity’s Synonyms data. For the reasons stated above, this is not subject to sealing. 16 6. Declaration of Michael O’Connell II, Exhibit I, Dkt. Nos. 218-21/236-15 17 Trans Union previously filed this declaration—in its entirety—on the public docket, see 18 Dkt. No. 181. The portion now sought to be sealed involves Trans Union’s incorporation of date- 19 of-birth matching into its OFAC matching protocol in September 2014. That Trans Union now 20 includes date-of-birth in its matching protocol and the date that it began doing so is not 21 confidential business information. Moreover, Trans Union previously disclosed such information. 22 7. Declaration of Michael O’Connell III, Exhibit J, Dkt. Nos. 218-23/236-17 23 The portions of the O’Connell III Declaration which Trans Union seeks to seal likewise 24 involve Accuity’s Synonyms product and whether Accuity was going to develop a date-of-birth 25 matching program post-Cortez. This information is not sealable for the same reasons discussed 26 above. 27 8. Declaration of Lynn Romanowski, Exhibit K, Dkt. Nos. 218-25/236-19 28 It is unclear what Trans Union seeks to seal from this declaration as it refers to the “non8 1 bolded information.” The highlighted portions of the Romanowski declaration contain personal 2 information regarding Plaintiff including his credit score and address, and are thus properly 3 sealable. The remainder of the declaration is not. As for the exhibits, Trans Union requests 4 sealing of Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A, however, is illegible. The Court cannot make a 5 determination about sealing a document it cannot read. The request for sealing of Exhibit A is 6 therefore denied. Exhibit B contains Mr. Ramirez’s credit report which Plaintiff has also filed as 7 an exhibit, see Dkt. No. 221-11. The credit report at Exhibit B may be redacted to match Docket 8 No. 221-1; that is, redacting only Mr. Ramirez’s social security number, current address, and date 9 of birth. 9. Declaration of Peter Turek, Exhibit L, Dkt. Nos. 218-27/236-21 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Trans Union has narrowed its request for sealing of Exhibit A, titled “OFAC Advisor 12 Amendment to Reseller Service Agreement” which is an agreement between Trans Union and 13 Open Dealer Exchange. The redacted line is properly sealable because it contains pricing 14 information, disclosure of which could competitively disadvantage Trans Union. Trans Union’s 15 motion is granted as to Exhibit L. 16 10. Deposition of Brent Newman, Exhibit M, Dkt. Nos. 218-29/226-23 17 Trans Union seeks sealing of portions of several pages of testimony regarding Accuity’s 18 Synonyms product and Accuity’s reasoning behind not including date of birth matching in its 19 product. This deposition testimony is not entitled to sealing for the reasons discussed above; 20 namely, that Accuity has failed to show that the information is sufficiently specific so as to reveal 21 any trade secret or otherwise confidential information, and even if it did, the information is stale as 22 it is seven years old. 23 11. Deposition of Annette Coito, Exhibit O, Dkt. Nos. 218-32/226-25 24 Trans Union has narrowed its request for sealing to only include portions of Exhibits 4 & 5 25 to Ms. Coito’s deposition which are Dealertrack pricing and service agreements. The redacted 26 information is narrowly tailored to only seek sealing of pricing information, disclosure of which 27 could competitively disadvantage Trans Union. Trans Union’s motion is granted as to Exhibit O. 28 9 1 12. Deposition of Robert Lytle, Exhibit S, Dkt. Nos. 218-38/236-27 2 Trans Union seeks sealing of several pages of Mr. Lytle’s deposition. These pages are not 3 sealable. They do not disclose confidential business practices, but rather, information at the heart 4 of this case regarding how Trans Union obtains, processes, and corrects OFAC data. The 5 testimony is general rather than technical in nature and thus does not reveal confidential 6 information regarding Trans Union’s systems. 7 13. Deposition of Michael O’Connell, Exhibit T, Dkt. Nos. 218-40/221-8/236-29 8 The testimony Trans Union seeks to seal largely involves Accuity’s Synonyms product and 9 10 Trans Union’s decision-making regarding the use of date-of-birth matching post-Cortez. This information is not confidential for the reasons previously stated. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 14. Deposition of Sergio Ramirez, Exhibit U, Dkt. Nos. 218-42/236-31 12 Trans Union states that it seeks sealing of only the address information in Exhibits 6, 7, 13 and 8 to Mr. Ramirez’s deposition, but nearly all of these exhibits have been redacted. Only the 14 address information is sealable. Trans Union may file a corrected version under seal. 15 15. Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 7, Dkt. Nos. 221-17 /236-33 16 This document is a Trans Union PowerPoint entitled “Additional OFAC Hit Analysis.” As 17 Trans Union has not explained how this six-year old information contains confidential, proprietary 18 information which would competitively harm Trans Union if disclosed, the request for sealing is 19 denied. 20 16. Deposition of Colleen Gill, Exhibit 8, Dkt. Nos. 221-19/ 236-35 21 Trans Union seeks sealing of portions of Ms. Gill’s testimony regarding the process by 22 which Trans Union verifies whether a consumer is on the Department of Treasury’s OFAC SDN 23 list and removes those who are not from Trans Union’s OFAC Alert. This information does not 24 reveal confidential business practices, nor is it proprietary and the mechanics of this process are a 25 key issue in this action. Sealing is thus inappropriate. 26 17. Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 15, Dkt. Nos. 221-27/236-37 27 This exhibit contains two emails regarding the feasibility of improving matching for Trans 28 Union’s OFAC Alert. This information does not reveal confidential business practices, nor is it 10 1 proprietary and the mechanics of this process are a key issue in this action. Sealing is thus 2 inappropriate. 3 18. Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 16, Dkt. Nos. 221-29/236-39 4 This exhibit contains an email string regarding development of the OFAC Alert product in 5 September 2010. To the extent that Trans Union’s numerical designator for the product is 6 confidential, Trans Union may redact that numerical designation. The remainder of the emails do 7 not reveal confidential business practices or proprietary information and the development of Trans 8 Union’s OFAC Alert is a key issue in this action. Sealing is thus inappropriate. The motion is 9 granted only as to the numerical designation for the OFAC Alert product in Exhibit 16. 19. Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 17, Dkt. Nos. 221-31/236-41 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 This exhibit consists of two emails regarding how customer relations will handle disputes 12 with OFAC Alerts in October 2010. These emails do not reveal confidential business practices, 13 nor proprietary information. Sealing is thus inappropriate. 14 20. Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 18, Dkt. Nos. 221-33/236-43 15 This exhibit consists of two emails regarding how Trans Union planned to handle 16 consumer OFAC disputes in September 2010. The information contained in these emails is not 17 confidential or proprietary. Sealing is not appropriate. 18 21. The Parties’ Briefs 19 Because the Court has denied Trans Union’s request for sealing with respect to almost all 20 of the 20 exhibits which it seeks to file under seal, there is no basis for sealing the parties’ briefs 21 discussing the same matters. CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated above, Trans Union’s renewed motion to seal is DENIED IN PART 23 24 25 AND GRANTED IN PART. The motion is granted as to the following:  Dkt. No. 236-19, Portions of the Declaration of Lynn Romanowski and Exhibit B as stated above. 26 27  Dkt. No. 236-21, Portions of Exhibit A to the Turek Declaration. 28  Dkt. No. 226-25, Portions of Exhibits 4 & 5 to the Coito Deposition. 11 1  Dkt. No. 236-31, Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 to the Deposition of Sergio Ramirez may be redacted to file the current address information under seal. 2 3  4 In all other respects, the motion to seal is DENIED. 5 This matter is set for trial June 12, 2017 with the Pretrial Conference on May 18, 2017. Trans Dkt. No. 236-39, Soumilas Declaration, Exhibit 16, only as to the numerical designator. 6 Union should be mindful of the Court’s rulings with respect to its pretrial filings—any further 7 motions to seal must strictly comply with the requirement that such motions be narrowly 8 tailored and satisfy the rigorous compelling reasons standard. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 This Order disposes of Docket No. 226. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 1, 2017 12 13 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12

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?