Benz v. The Clorox Company

Filing 42

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part #41 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The Clerk is directed to UNSEAL Exhibit A to the Rajaratnam Declaration Docket No. 41-4. The Clerk is directed to UNSEAL Exhibit 7 to the Bolding Deposition Docket No. 41-6. Exhibit 17 to the Bolding Deposition, Docket No. 41-8, shall REMAIN FILED UNDER SEAL.(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAROL BENZ,

Case No. 13-cv-01361-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

THE CLOROX COMPANY,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 41

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Defendant has filed an administrative motion to file under seal three documents filed in

13

support of its motion for summary judgment: (1) Exhibit A to the Rajaratnam Declaration,

14

outlining initiatives from the “Global Insights Department”; (2) Exhibit 7 to the Bolding

15

Deposition, outlining Clorox’s internal performance review process; and (3) Exhibit 17 to the

16

Bolding Deposition, containing confidential performance information of current and former

17

Clorox employees. Docket No. 41.

18

As these documents have been submitted in conjunction with defendant’s motion for

19

summary judgment, the Court starts from the strong presumption of access to public records.

20

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. Haw. 2006). That

21

presumption can only be overcome if the party seeking to seal information meets a “high

22

threshold” and provides “sufficiently compelling reasons” that override the public policies

23

favoring disclosure. Id. Compelling reasons exist, for example, when court files might become a

24

vehicle for “improper purposes,” such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

25

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179.

26

Applying this standard, the Court DENIES the motion to seal as to Exhibit A to the

27

Rajaratnam Declaration and Exhibit 7 to the Bolding Deposition. These documents contain only

28

generalized statements of company goals and common strategies for evaluating employee

1

performance. They do not contain any detailed trade secret information, the release of which

2

would harm Clorox. The declaration submitted in support of the motion to seal says only that

3

release of these documents “could potentially” cause Clorox some unidentified harm to its

4

“competitive advantage.” That is insufficient to justify sealing these records.

5

As to Exhibit 17 to the Bolding Deposition, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal.

6

Release of performance information of current and former employees implicates those employees’

7

privacy rights and could be used for improper purposes.

8
9

Therefore, the Clerk is directed to UNSEAL Exhibit A to the Rajaratnam Declaration –
Docket No. 41-4. The Clerk is directed to UNSEAL Exhibit 7 to the Bolding Deposition – Docket
No. 41-6. Exhibit 17 to the Bolding Deposition, Docket No. 41-8, shall REMAIN FILED

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

UNDER SEAL.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2