Seifi et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Filing 111

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 106 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal without prejudice. Renewed Administrative Motion or Joint Stipulation due 12/10/2014. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MAJEED SEIFI, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

v.
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC,
Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05493-TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

9
10

Plaintiffs seek to file portions of their motion for partial summary judgment and

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

certain exhibits thereto under seal, because such material was previously designated

12

“Confidential” by Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC (“MBUSA”). After carefully

13

reviewing Plaintiffs’ administrative motion and MBUSA’s declaration justifying the

14

designations, the Court now DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion without prejudice,

15

for the reasons set forth below.

16
17
18

DISCUSSION
There is “a strong presumption in favor of [public] access when deciding whether to

19

seal records.” Apple Inc. v. Pystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). This

20

strong presumption “applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary

21

judgment and related attachments . . . because the resolution of a dispute on the merits . . .

22

is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process

23

and of significant public events.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

24

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d

25

1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

26

A party seeking to file documents under seal “must articulate compelling reasons

27

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

28

public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal

1

alteration and citation omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to

2

a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without

3

more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. “The ‘compelling reasons’

4

standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed

5

under seal or protective order.” Id.

6

Here, Plaintiffs seek to file documents under seal because the documents, or

7

materials on which they rely, were previously designated “Confidential” by MBUSA.

8

Administrative Mot. at 1 (Docket No. 106). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1),

9

MBUSA filed a declaration on December 1, 2014, purporting to establish that all of the
designated material was sealable. Yoshino Decl. at 1-2 (Docket No. 110). However,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

MBUSA’s explanations are vague and conclusory. MBUSA argues that the designated

12

materials contain “sensitive and confidential warranty information and policies,” and that,

13

for some of the material, “Only certain authorized personnel have access to the

14

information . . . .” Id. Yet, MBUSA does not identify any specific harm that it would

15

suffer if this material were disclosed, much less a compelling reason, based on specific

16

facts, to overcome the public’s interest in disclosure.

17

Without greater justification, the Court cannot conclude that the designated material

18

meets the standard to be filed under seal. However, neither will the Court permit Plaintiffs

19

to publicly file this material without giving MBUSA an opportunity to provide such

20

justification. For this reason, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion without

21

prejudice. Within seven days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file either a renewed

22

administrative motion to file documents under seal, or a joint stipulation in which MBUSA

23

grants permission to file the protected material pursuant to sections 7.2 and 12.3 of the

24

stipulated protective order. See Stipulated Protective Order at 7, 11 (Docket No. 77). If

25

Plaintiffs file a renewed administrative motion, MBUSA shall file a renewed declaration,

26

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), identifying what compelling reasons and specific

27

facts support sealing the documents in regard to the motion for partial summary judgment.

28

2

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file documents
under seal is DENIED without prejudice.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 12/03/14

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

9
10

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

3