McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 104 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SANDRA MCKINNON and KRISTEN
)
TOOL, individually and on behalf )
of others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, )
INC. d/b/a DOLLAR RENT A CAR;
)
DOLLAR RENT A CAR, INC.; DTG
)
OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a DOLLAR
)
RENTA A CAR; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. CV 12-cv-04457-SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

17
18
19

The parties are in the process of briefing two motions in this

20

case: Defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of Donald

21

R. Lichtenstein, ECF No. 105, and Plaintiffs' motion for class

22

certification, ECF No. 92.

23

documents (or portions of documents) submitted in support of their

24

motion to exclude, ECF No. 104 ("Seal Mot. I"), and in opposition

25

to Plaintiffs' motion, ECF No. 106 ("Seal Mot. II").

26

motion is adequately limited to sealable material, and neither

27

follows the Civil Local Rules.

28

information Defendants seek to seal is indeed sealable.

Defendants have filed motions to seal

Neither

Nonetheless, some of the
As a

1

result, and for the reasons outlined below, the motions are GRANTED

2

in part and DENIED in part.

3

The Court reminds the parties that administrative motions to

establishing that the document or portions thereof is sealable; (B)

6

a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the

7

sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or

8

United States District Court

file documents under seal must be accompanied by (A) a declaration

5

For the Northern District of California

4

portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.

9

to file documents under seal are not narrowly tailored, the

Defendants' motions

10

supporting declarations are insufficient to establish that the

11

information is sealable, and the proposed orders do not contain the

12

required lists in table format.

13

recognized 'a general right to inspect and copy public records and

14

documents, including judicial records and documents.'"

15

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

16

(citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

17

(1978)).

18

sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and

19

justify sealing court records" and "overcome the strong presumption

20

of access to judicial records . . . ."

21

citations and quotations omitted).

22

explanations for their requests to seal documents are general,

23

boilerplate explanations that fall well short of demonstrating

24

compelling reasons for keeping information from the public.

25

Most importantly, "[c]ourts have

Kamakana v.

The sealing of documents requires "compelling reasons

Id. at 1179 (internal

Most of Defendants'

That said, some of the information Defendants seek to seal is

26

indeed sealable.

Many of the documents contain internal sales

27

numbers or statistics that Defendants rightly hope to keep from

28

their competitors.

Others contain personal details or contact

2

1

information that should be kept private.

2

are GRANTED with respect to that sealable material.

3

The motions, therefore,

However, Defendants' motions strike the Court as exceedingly

Defendants' motion to exclude is the deposition of Donald R.

6

Lichtenstein.

7

transcript, and Defendants ask the Court to seal the entire

8

United States District Court

overbroad in other instances.

5

For the Northern District of California

4

document.

9

may touch on sensitive issues that might properly be filed under

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

For example, Exhibit 2 to

The exhibit contains 250 pages of deposition

While a small minority of Mr. Lichtenstein's testimony

seal, much of the deposition is not sealable.
Moreover, an exemplar of Defendants' repeated and mostly
unhelpful justifications for sealing information is that it
contains sensitive and confidential business information,
including summaries of Dollar's total sales information.
This information is valuable to Dollar and is not
publicly available, and is thus trade secret information
as defined in California Civil Code § 3426.1. Revealing
this
information
would
harm
Dollar
vis-à-vis
its
competitors.

17

See ECF Nos. 104-1 ("Ward Decl. I") ¶¶ 3, 4, 5; 106-1 ("Ward Decl.

18

II") ¶¶ 5.

19

sealing information with respect to other documents.

20

Decl. II ¶¶ 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11(a).

21

insufficient to convince the Court that there are compelling

22

reasons for sealing significant portions of the information

23

Defendants hope to redact.

24

their proprietary training materials and marketing strategy

25

information are always sealable.

26

information that references those sources of information, even when

27

the information cited is extremely general and innocuous.

28

example, Defendants seek to seal the facts that some of their

Defendants also repeat very similar justifications for
See Ward

Those justifications are

Defendants apparently believe that

They therefore seek to seal any

3

For

insurance and that some corporate customers have contracted with

3

Defendants for rates that include insurance products.

4

16-16 at 5 (filed under seal), 106-18 ¶ 23 (filed under seal).

5

another example, Defendants seek to seal the facts that their

6

rental sales agents receive intensive initial training and then

7

continue to receive ongoing training.

8

United States District Court

customers might have credit cards that do not provide rental car

2

For the Northern District of California

1

(filed under seal).

9

redact the fact that customers can rent cars from Defendant Dollar

See ECF Nos.
As

See ECF No. 106-18 ¶ 53

In yet another example, Defendants seek to

10

Rent A Car through travel websites like Expedia.

But Expedia

11

publicly advertises that fact on its website.

12

Rentals, Expedia, http://rental-cars.expedia.com/car-

13

vendors/dollar-rent-a-car/ (last visited April 16, 2015).

14

Court fails to see why public access to that information might harm

15

Defendants. 1

See Find Dollar Car

The

As a result of Defendants' attempts to seal these and other

16
17

similarly innocuous pieces of information, the motions to file

18

under seal are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19

in the table below the documents or portions thereof for which the

20

motions are granted or denied.

21

required to submit revised redacted versions of these documents

22

consistent with the Court's order.

The Court lists

Normally, Defendants would be

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also reminds the parties that the protective order in
this case provides, regarding designation of material for
protection under seal, that:
Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are
prohibited.
Designations that are shown to be clearly
unjustified . . . . shall expose the Designating Party to
sanctions.
ECF No. 49 ("Protective Order") at 4-5.

4

1

However, the Court will permit Defendants, if they choose, to

2

instead submit revised motions to file under seal that are narrowly

3

tailored and supported by declarations adequately explaining the

4

compelling reasons for sealing the information.
The Court admonishes the parties that the Court might not be

5

Failure to narrowly tailor future requests to seal or to adequately

8

United States District Court

so lenient with respect to future motions to file under seal.

7

For the Northern District of California

6

explain the reasons for sealing information may result in outright

9

denial of the motion and an order to file in the public record.
Defendants' motions to file under seal are GRANTED or DENIED

10
11

as described in the table below:

12
13
14
15
16
17

ECF No. (Description)
104-6 (Motion to Exclude)
104-7 (MTE Ex. 1)
104-8 (MTE Ex. 2)
106-16 (Class Certification
Opposition)
106-18 (Cert. Opp'n Ex. 2)

18
19
20
21
22
23

106-25
106-28
106-29
106-30
106-31
106-32

(Cert.
(Cert.
(Cert.
(Cert.
(Cert.
(Cert.

Opp'n
Opp'n
Opp'n
Opp'n
Opp'n
Opp'n

Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.
Ex.

5)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)

106-33 (Cert. Opp'n Ex. 12)

Ruling on Motion to File Under Seal
GRANTED
DENIED
DENIED
GRANTED IN PART
DENIED as to first paragraph on page 4
GRANTED IN PART
DENIED as to paragraphs 23, 53-60
GRANTED
DENIED
DENIED
GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED IN PART
DENIED as to paragraph 22
GRANTED

24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

5

1

The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants may file either (1)

consistent with this order, or (2) a revised motion to file these

4

documents under seal that properly tailors the redactions to

5

sealable material and adequately explains the compelling reasons

6

for sealing that material.

7

must abide by the seven (7) day deadline set out in Civil Local

8

United States District Court

revised redacted versions of the documents they seek to seal

3

For the Northern District of California

2

Rule 79-5(f)(3).

Whichever route Defendants choose, they

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: April 20, 2015

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6