Ochoa et al v. McDonald's Corp et al

Filing 99

ORDER by Judge James Donato denying without prejudice 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , and 92 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. Any renewed motion must be filed by 4/20/2015. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHANIE OCHOA, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02098-JD

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

MCDONALD'S CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 98

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has considered the declarations of Michael Smith, see Dkt. No. 97, and Savan

13

Vaghani, see Dkt. No. 98, filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), and finds them inadequate

14

under the Civil Local Rules and the relevant precedent. In a number of cases, the declarations

15

simply make conclusory statements that the documents sought to be sealed contain “commercially

16

sensitive information,” but “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors

17

without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’

18

is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D.

19

Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL

20

6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)). Rather, the party seeking to seal information must

21

make a “particularized showing” with respect to each individual document in order to justify

22

sealing it, even under the “good cause” standard. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447

23

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096,

24

1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The Smith and Vaghani declarations do not make a particularized showing

25

that each document sought to be sealed is “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

26

entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

27
28

In addition, the declarations seek to seal entire documents, without making any effort to
limit the proposed redactions to the sealable portions of those documents. This is contrary to Civil

1

Local Rule 79-5(b)’s requirement that requests to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing

2

only of sealable material.”

3

The Court therefore denies the pending administrative motions to seal -- but without

4

prejudice to the Smith Family Partnership’s and the McDonald’s defendants’ ability to file a new

5

administrative motion to seal that meets the standards referenced above. See Dkt. Nos. 85-92.

6

Any such administrative motion to seal should comply with the following directions:

7

1. Defendants should file a single motion that covers all of their requests to seal by

8

April 20, 2015. If no such motion is filed, plaintiffs should file unredacted copies

9

of each of the documents sought to be sealed in the public docket by April 22,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2015.
2. If a renewed administrative motion to seal is filed, defendants must collect and

12

submit all documents proposed for sealing in a freestanding binder with separate

13

consecutive tab numbers for each document. Each tab should contain an

14

unredacted version of the document with the proposed redactions highlighted in

15

yellow. Do not submit separate redacted and unredacted versions of the same

16

document. Make sure the highlighting allows the Court to easily read the

17

underlying text. If defendants are proposing to redact an entire document, make a

18

note on the first page of the document or in a footer on each page of the document

19

and do not highlight the whole document. For long documents, include only the

20

pages with portions that the party wishes to seal. Do not include any other

21

materials in this binder -- no arguments, declarations, or anything else. In addition,

22

a full copy of each unredacted document with only defendants’ proposed redactions

23

highlighted should be filed under seal on ECF.

24

3. Any renewed administrative motion to seal must be accompanied by declarations

25

that state with particularity, and in a non-conclusory fashion, the factual bases that

26

support sealing the materials under the relevant legal standard.

27
28

4. Defendants must provide a single proposed order in the table format specified in
Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B) as modified here: (i) the far left column should list
2

1

the tab number for each document; (ii) the next column should specify the exact

2

portions to be sealed; (iii) the next column should state succinctly the specific and

3

particularized reason for sealing and give pin cites to the declaration paragraphs

4

(including non-party declarations) supporting the compelling reasons to seal; and

5

(iv) the rightmost column should provide a space for the Court to indicate whether

6

the request is denied or granted.

7
8
9
10

In addition, any party that wishes to seal material associated with the opposition to or reply
in support of the motion for class certification must follow the directions above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3