Nazif v. Computer Sciences Corporation

Filing 91

ORDER RE: SEALING. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/4/2015. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRED NAZIF,

Case No. 13-cv-05498-EMC (JSC)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: SEALING

9
10

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 85

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On April 21, 2015 the Court granted Defendant’s motion to preserve confidentiality

14

designation of an internal audit report produced during discovery and granted in part the parties’

15

administrative motions to file under seal the briefing on the underlying motion to preserve

16

confidentiality. (Dkt. No. 75.) The Court filed the April 21 Order under seal because various

17

matters referenced therein were filed under seal in this matter. (Id. at 15.) However, the Court

18

noted that it was “not persuaded that anything discussed in th[e] Order is in fact confidential and

19

properly sealable” and required Defendant to inform the Court by no later than April 28 what

20

information, if any, within the Order must remain sealed. (Id.) With respect to the briefing, the

21

Court determined that the parties’ request for sealing was overbroad and ordered Defendant to file

22

a statement to inform the Court by no later than April 28 identifying which portions of the briefing

23

must remain sealed and why. (Id.)

24

Defendant has since filed a notice indicating that no portion of the Court’s April 21 Order

25

need be sealed. (Dkt. No. 85 at 2.) The Court notes that its Order references the types of

26

confidential subjects described in the confidential internal audit report, such as accounting policies

27

and customer arrangements, but does not describe details or explain what those policies are or who

28

the customer is. Accordingly, the Court orders that the April 21 Order be UNSEALED.

In addition, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s statement identifying those portions of the

1
2

briefing underlying the motion to preserve confidentiality designation that should remain under

3

seal. (Dkt. No. 85 at 2-5.) The Court will address the proposed redactions to each motion in turn.

4

1.

Motion to Preserve Confidentiality

5

Defendant has proposed limited redactions to those portions of the motion to preserve

6

confidentiality that actually disclose Defendant’s specific proprietary accounting policies and

7

procedures, discussions and proposals for improvements to those policies and procedures, to the

8

accounts of particular clients. The Court agrees that almost all of the proposed redactions are

9

narrowly tailored to seal only this type of information. Page 12, Lines 6-8 are properly redacted.1
The next set of redactions, beginning on Page 16, should be more limited. Lines 24 and 25 only

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

describe the type of confidential subjects in the Internal Audit report without disclosing the actual

12

information. Thus, they need not be sealed. However, lines Page 16, Line 26 through Page 17,

13

Line 3 actually identify areas where improvement was suggested, which shall remain under seal

14

for the reasons explained in the Court’s April 21 Order.

15

2.

16

Opposition to Motion to Preserve Confidentiality & Exhibits A-C of LeClerc
Declaration

Defendant seeks to seal portions of the opposition that disclose discussions, assessments,

17
18

and suggestions for improvements to Defendant’s internal accounting policies and practices or

19

quote directly from the recommendation section of the Internal Audit Report. The Court agrees

20

that such information should be redacted, but concludes that some of Defendant’s proposed

21

redactions are overbroad, seeking to seal sentences that do not disclose such information, but

22

merely reference the subject matter—i.e., “recommendations for improvement”—or contain

23

argument regarding the same. Based on its review of Defendant’s proposed redactions, the Court

24

concludes that Page 10’s redactions should be limited to Lines 8-9 and 21-22. Page 11’s

25

redactions should be limited to Lines 21-24 and Line 27 after the word “information.” Page 12,

26
1

27
28

With the exception of the portions described above, the below portions to seal are the same as
those that Defendant proposed. However, for ease of identification, where the page numbers
differ, the Court lists the page number that the electronic filing system assigned at the top of each
page, not the page number the party included at the bottom.
2

1
2

Line 1 shall be redacted before the word “[c]onsequently.”
In addition, Defendant seeks to seal in their entirety Exhibits A, B, and C of the LeClerc

3

Declaration “[t]o the extent . . . [they] contain redacted and/or unredacted copies of the IA

4

Report[.]” (Dkt. No. 85 at 4.) Defendant did not identify by page number the portion it contends

5

should remain under seal. Based on the Court’s review, the copies of the report itself shall remain

6

under seal, but emails to which it was attached shall not; thus, the email portions of Exhibits A

7

through C, in which counsel state their positions regarding sealing but do not disclose confidential

8

information (see Dkt. No. 58-5 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 58-5 at 21; Dkt. No. 58-6 at 2) shall be filed on the

9

public docket, but the remaining portion of Exhibits A, B, and C shall remain under seal.
3.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Reply in Support of Motion to Preserve Confidentiality

Finally, Defendant’s statement identifies portions of the reply that, it argues, should remain

12

under seal because it discloses one of Defendant’s proprietary software products and provides

13

details of Defendant’s accounting policies and practices. Only the parentheticals on Page 3, Line

14

25, and Page 4, Lines 4-6 shall remain under seal. In addition, Defendant contends that Page 9,

15

Lines 9-11 should remain under seal because it discloses discussion, assessment, and suggestions

16

for improvement to Defendant’s internal accounting policies and practices. The Court agrees.

17

* * *

18

Accordingly, the following portions of the briefing underlying the motion to preserve

19

confidentiality designation shall remain under seal:

20
21

Document

Portions to Seal

22

Motion to Preserve Confidentiality
(Dkt. No. 52-3)

Page 12, Lines 6-8
Page 16, Line 26
Page 17, Lines 1-3

Opposition to Motion to Preserve
Confidentiality (Dkt. No. 58-4)

Page 10, Line 7-8, 21-22
Page 11, Lines 21-24, Line 27 after
the word “information”
Page 12, Line 1 up to the word
“[c]onsequently”

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Exhibits A, B and C Declaration of
Chris LeClerc in support of
Opposition to Motion to Preserve
Confidentiality (Dkt. Nos. 58-5 &
58-6)
Reply in support of Motion to
Preserve Confidentiality (Dkt. No.
60-3)

Dkt. No. 58-5 at 7-20, 22-34
Dkt. No. 58-6 at 3-15

Page 3, Line 25
Page 4, Lines 4-6
Page 9, Line 9-11

The parties shall file redacted versions of their briefing consistent with this Order by no
later than May 8, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 4, 2015

10
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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
4