Rahman v. Mott's LLP et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL 65 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14
15

MOHAMMED RAHMAN, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated,

16

Plaintiff,

17
18

No. C 13-03482 SI
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SEAL

v.
MOTT’S L.L.P., and DOES 1 through 10,

19
/

Defendants.

20
21

On August 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and a motion for the

22

appointment of class counsel. Docket No. 66. Along with his motion, plaintiff also filed a motion to

23

seal portions of the motion for class certification and portions of Exhibit A and all of Exhibit D to the

24

declaration of Robert K. Friedl filed in support of the motion. Docket No. 65.

25

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts

26

begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

27

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

28

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling

1

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

2

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”

3

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

4

and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive

5

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at

6

1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

7

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. N.D. Cal.

8

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).
“The Ninth Circuit has not ruled as to whether a motion for class certification is a dispositive

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

motion for the purposes of determining whether the ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies.” Labrador

11

v. Seattle Mortgage Co., No. 08-2270 SC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95763, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1,

12

2010). “Although courts in the Northern District ‘have generally considered motions for class

13

certification nondispositive,’ some have recognized that ‘there may be circumstances in which a motion

14

for class certification is case dispositive.’” Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15

67206, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2014) (citations omitted). For example, “a motion for class

16

certification might be dispositive if ‘a denial of class status means that the stakes are too low for the

17

named plaintiffs to continue the matter.’” In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 11-CV-02509-LHK,

18

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6606, at *8 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (quoting Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266,

19

1274 (11th Cir. 2000)).

20

In the motion and the supporting declaration, plaintiff states that he is moving to seal the portions

21

of the motion for class certification and Exhibits A and D to the Friedl declaration because these

22

documents contain information that has been designated as confidential by defendant pursuant to the

23

protective order in this case. Docket No. 65 at 1; Docket No. 65-1, Friedl Decl. ¶¶ 2-5. Under Civil

24

Local Rule 79-5(e), where “the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a document designated as

25

confidential by the opposing party or a non-party pursuant to a protective order . . . [,] [w]ithin 4 days

26

of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a

27

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is

28

sealable.” To date, the designating party has not filed the required declaration. Accordingly, the Court
2

1

DENIES plaintiff’s motion to seal. Docket No. 65. This denial is without prejudice to the designating

2

party filing the declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) within seven days from the date

3

this order is filed.1

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated: August 7, 2014
7

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If after seven days, no party files the required declaration, then plaintiff must publicly file the
documents at issue within seven days from that date pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2).
3