Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 202

ORDER REGARDING SEALING OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Judge William H. Orrick re 180 , 182 , and 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
FABRIENNE ENGLISH,

7

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING SEALING OF
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

v.
9
APPLE INC, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 197

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Between July 1, 2015 and July 14, 2015, plaintiff made six separate filings in connection

12
13

with her motion for class certification, all filed as exhibits to various administrative motions to file

14

under seal. See Dkt. Nos. 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189. On July 1, 2015, she moved to seal the

15

entire motion for class certification and all of its supporting exhibits. Dkt. No. 180. The next day,

16

she filed a “corrected” motion to seal, along with six “corrected” exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 182, 183. A

17

week later, on July 9, 2015, she filed a second “corrected” motion to seal, along with a “corrected”

18

version of her class certification motion. Dkt. No. 186. On July 10, 2015, she filed a third

19

“corrected” motion to seal, accompanied by an “errata” to the “corrected” version of the class

20

certification motion. Dkt. No. 187. Finally, on July 14, 2015, she filed yet another “corrected”

21

motion to seal, this time accompanied by two “corrected” expert reports. Dkt. No. 189.1
Plaintiff does not identify any confidential information concerning herself or other putative

22
23

class members in the motion for class certification or its supporting exhibits. She nevertheless

24

seeks to seal the entire motion and all of its exhibits “out of respect for Apple’s sensitive trade

25

position, [in] the interest of promoting an amicable resolution, in consideration of how important

26
27
28

1

On July 16, 2015, at Apple’s request, I issued an order prohibiting plaintiff from making any
further supplemental filings in support of her motion for class certification without prior leave of
the Court. Dkt. No. 194.

1
2

one’s reputation is, and to promote good relations with Apple.” Dkt. Nos. 180, 189.
Apple correctly construed plaintiff’s sealing request as governed by Civil Local Rule 79-

3

5(e), which applies where the party moving to seal “seek[s] to file under seal a document

4

designated as confidential by the opposing party or a nonparty pursuant to a protective order, or a

5

document containing information so designated by an opposing party or a nonparty.” Civil L.R.

6

79-5(e). After receiving an extension of time, Dkt. Nos. 184, 185, Apple filed its declaration in

7

support of sealing pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)(1) and 79-5(d)(1)(A) on July 20, 2015.

8

Dkt. No. 197.

9

Apple seeks to seal two categories of documents. First, Apple seeks to seal in their
entirety those documents that have been supplanted by plaintiff’s various “corrected” or other

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

amended filings. Dkt. No. 197 at 1. Those documents are no longer material to this case, and this

12

first request is GRANTED.

13

Apple also seeks to seal various portions of the most recent versions of the motion for class

14

certification and its exhibits. Apple identifies four categories of information for sealing: (1)

15

information concerning its remanufacturing and testing processes; (2) information concerning its

16

internal training materials; (3) information concerning its sales and service numbers; and (4)

17

information concerning its databases and data capabilities. Vyas Decl. ¶¶ 2-13 (Dkt. No. 197-9).

18

With respect to each of the four categories, Apple offers essentially the same justification

19

for sealing – i.e., that the information is confidential, and that its disclosure “would pose a

20

substantial risk to Apple’s interests and could adversely impact Apple’s ability to compete in the

21

future,” because competitors could model their own business operations after Apple’s or otherwise

22

use the information to “unfairly compete” with Apple. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7, 10, 13.

23

“The Ninth Circuit has not ruled as to whether a motion for class certification is a

24

dispositive motion for the purposes of determining whether the compelling reasons standard

25

applies” to a sealing request. Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-cv-00632-JSC, 2014 WL

26

1677815, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although courts in

27

this district generally treat motions for class certification as nondispositive, they have also

28

recognized that “there may be circumstances in which a motion for class certification is case
2

1

dispositive,” for example, where the “denial of class status means that the stakes are too low for

2

the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-

3

cv-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (internal quotation marks

4

omitted); see also Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-cv-02549-NJV, 2013 WL 1435223, at

5

*1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (“Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute

6

the death knell of a case, the vast majority of courts within this circuit treat motions for class

7

certification as nondispositive motions to which the good cause sealing standard applies.”)

8

(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Here, plaintiff’s individual damages claims are sufficiently limited that it is not plausible

10

that she would continue to litigate the case if certification is denied. Accordingly, I find that the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

compelling reasons standard applies. See Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-02131-LHK, 2014

12

WL 3920036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) (applying compelling reasons standard to documents

13

filed in connection with class certification motion where named plaintiff’s limited individual

14

damages claims “strongly suggest that the stakes of this case following the Court’s denial of class

15

certification are now too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter”) (internal quotation

16

marks omitted).

17

Under that standard, a party seeking to seal materials must identify “compelling reasons

18

supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access” to judicial

19

records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal

20

quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). “This presumption of access may be

21

overcome only on the basis of articulable facts known to the court, not on the basis of unsupported

22

hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal

23

quotation marks omitted). In general, compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when

24

the materials “might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to

25

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

26

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). But “[t]he mere fact

27

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

28

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
3

In addition, under this district’s civil local rules, “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a

1
2

request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade

3

secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request

4

must also be “narrowly tailored.” Id.
With these principles in mind, I rule as follows:

5
6
7
8

Information Concerning Apple’s Remanufacturing and Testing Processes
Dkt.
No.
186-1

Exhibit
No.
N/A

Document Name

Portions Identified for Sealing

Ruling

Motion for Class
Certification

DENIED

180-8

3

Lanigan Depo.

180-23

18

Dixon Decl.

4:19-21
9:1-3
12:6-9
27:1-25
28:1-8, 24-25
93:1-2, 4-25
94:1-25
105:1-3, 15, 18
160:1-2, 5-13, 22-25
161:1-10, 12-13, 15-25
163:1-23
167:1-4, 7-8, 11-25
168:1-25
169:1-20
171:11-25
177:17-25
215:1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 17-22,
24-25
216:1-2, 4-9, 13-24
220:1-15
221:3-4, 7-18, 20-25
225:1-4, 6-11
226:24-25
227:1-14, 16-25
272:9-15, 20-21
273:7-13, 16-17, 19-25
274:1-14, 18-20, 22-24
2:7-28
3:1-8.5, 12-14.5

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DENIED

DENIED

Information Concerning Apple’s Internal Training Materials

24
Dkt.
No.
186-1

Exhibit
No.
N/A

Document Name

Portions Identified for Sealing Ruling

Motion for Class
Certification

183-5

25

19

Reed Decl.

10:26-28
11:1-5
12:24-27
13:5-10
4:10-12

26
27
28

4

DENIED

DENIED

180-25

20

4

183-6

21

5

180-27

22

180-28

23

180-29

24

180-34

29

180-35

30

180-36

31

180-38

33

180-39

34

AppleCare+ Enroll All
at Time of
Incident

180-40

35

180-41

36

180-42

37

AppleCare+ Enroll All
Within 30 Days of
Purchase
Positioning
All
AppleCare+ in the
Family
Room
APL00000791
All

1
2
3

6
7
8
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

Apple Products
and Services:
Apple
Retail Training
Core Training
Facilitator
Guide
Ramos Decl.

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

3:11-13

DENIED

Apple Services:
Market Core
Training
Facilitator Guide
Core Training
Facilitator Guide:
Apple Products
and Services
Louise:
AppleCare+
Timeline Updates:
Black Project
AOS Learning:
Selling the
AppleCare
Protection Plan
Facilitator’s Guide
Training Activity

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

All

Training Materials
and Test
Questions
Apple Products

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

All

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

Information Concerning Apple’s Sales and Service Numbers
Dkt.
No.
186-1

Exhibit
No.
N/A

Document Name

Portions Identified for Sealing

Motion for Class
Certification

10:13
18:7-9

28
5

Ruling
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

1

180-31

26

Defendant Apple
Inc.’s Highly
Confidential
Responses to
Plaintiff’s
Interrogatories,
(Set Two)

2
3
4

7

Dkt.
No.
186-1

Exhibit
No.
N/A

Document Name

Portions Identified for Sealing Ruling

Motion for Class
Certification

180-10

5

Morrison Depo.

9:20.5-27.5
10:1-2
17:28.5
18:1
67:5-11
71:14-18
79:16
170:17-20

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONDITIONALLY
GRANTED

Information Concerning Apple’s Databases and Data Capabilities

5
6

4:19
5:12
6:10
7:5

DENIED

DENIED

Because it appears that at least some of the denied sealing requests listed above are merely

12

overbroad and/or concern information that could be sealable upon a proper showing, I will deny

13

the requests without prejudice. Apple may file a revised declaration narrowing its sealing requests

14

and/or articulating specific reasons justifying those requests within seven days of the date of this

15

order. If Apple does not do so, the materials will be unsealed.

16

In addition, as the motion for class certification is not yet fully briefed, it is not yet clear

17

what information will be material to resolution of that motion. Accordingly, certain of the sealing

18

requests listed above are granted conditionally, subject to reconsideration once the motion for

19

class certification has been fully briefed and argued. I rule on the sealing requests now to provide

20

the parties some guidance on what constitutes sealable information in this case.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 6, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
6