Richard Dent, et al v. National Football League

Filing 190

ORDER DENYING 169 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 174 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2021)

Case 3:14-cv-02324-WHA Document 190 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICHARD DENT, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

No. C 14-02324 WHA

v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE,
Defendant.

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL, DKT. NOS. 169, 174

15
16

Plaintiffs and defendant have moved to file under seal exhibits submitted in connection

17

with plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and corresponding portions of their briefs

18

referring to the exhibits.

19

The public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

20

including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

21

597 (1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in keeping a watchful eye on the

22

workings of public agencies.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

23

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

24

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in

25

favor of access is the starting point. A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the

26

burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.

27

That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,

28

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as

Case 3:14-cv-02324-WHA Document 190 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 4

1

the public interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the court must conscientiously

2

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

3

records secret.” Id. at 1178–79 (cleaned up).

4

“What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound discretion of the trial

5

court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote

6

public scandal, to circulate libelous statements, or as sources of business information that

7

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

8

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
The compelling reasons standard applies to sealing of documents relating to class

10

certification because “the motion at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099.

12

Requests to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

13

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Reference to a stipulation or

14

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not

15

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

16

5(d)(1)(A).

17

1.

18

Plaintiffs have moved to file under seal the entirety of dozens of exhibits filed in support

DKT. NO. 169.

19

of their motion for class certification and portions of their brief referencing the exhibits

20

because the NFL designated the exhibits confidential under the stipulated protective order in

21

this case. Reference to a stipulated protective order is insufficient to establish that the

22

documents are sealable. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). The NFL has not filed a declaration in

23

support of sealing.

24

Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

25

2.

26

Plaintiffs seek to maintain under seal the entirety of nearly every exhibit submitted by the

27

DKT. NO. 174.

NFL in opposition to the motion for class certification on the grounds that the exhibits contain

28
2

Case 3:14-cv-02324-WHA Document 190 Filed 08/31/21 Page 3 of 4

1

(1) plaintiffs’ health information, (2) other players’ health information, and (3) plaintiffs’

2

financial information.

3

First, plaintiffs vaguely refer to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

4

of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996), in support of their request to seal

5

references to players’ health information. HIPAA, however, does not protect against the

6

disclosure of health information by the district court because the district court is not a health

7

plan, a health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider. 45 C.F.R. § 164.104.

8
9

Second, the motion is deniable on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to comply with
the requirement that the request be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The requests are wildly overbroad because only small portions of the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

exhibits contain individually identifiable health information, but plaintiffs have requested to

12

seal the entirety of the exhibits.

13

This order finds as follows. The request to seal plaintiffs’ health information is DENIED

14

because this matter goes to the heart of this case, is necessary for the public to understand the

15

case, and plaintiffs have not articulated a compelling reason to overcome the strong

16

presumption in favor of public access.

17

Plaintiffs also move to seal the entirety of nearly every exhibit to the NFL’s opposition

18

which were produced in the related action Evans, et al., v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club,

19

LLC, et al., No. C 16-01030 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2016), and which the parties agreed could be

20

used in this action. These exhibits are the Evans plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts and workers’

21

compensation documents filed by the clubs in that action in connection with the various

22

motions to dismiss and summary judgment. Thus, much of this information is already public.

23

See Block Decl., Evans, et al. v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC, No. C 16-01030

24

WHA (ECF No. 213) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017). Moreover, the Evans plaintiffs’ experiences

25

receiving medical care and drugs from their clubs is closely related to the merits of the

26

underlying action since they are putative class members. Plaintiffs have provided no

27

compelling reason that this information warrants sealing. Therefore, the motion to seal the

28

Evans plaintiffs’ health information is DENIED.
3

Case 3:14-cv-02324-WHA Document 190 Filed 08/31/21 Page 4 of 4

1

Finally, plaintiffs seek to seal information about their personal finances, such as
“workers’ compensation claims and benefits, disability claims and benefits, retirement claims

3

and benefits, and information relating to settlements of such claims” (Dkt. No. 180 ¶ 10).

4

Plaintiffs assert this information warrants sealing because plaintiffs “are of old age and overall

5

poor health, leaving them particularly vulnerable to being taken advantage of.” This order

6

rejects the speculative assertion that simply because a person has applied for and received

7

workers’ compensation or disability benefits he becomes more vulnerable to unspecified

8

financial scams. Redactions of only the dollar amounts awarded would be narrowly tailored

9

toward serving plaintiffs’ interest in security in this regard. Therefore, plaintiffs must file

10

public versions of the exhibits and defendant’s brief with redactions limited to the dollar

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

amounts awarded, nothing more. Otherwise, the motion to seal references to plaintiffs’

12

workers’ compensation and disability claims is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: August 31, 2021

17
18
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4