Lucido v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Company

Filing 178

SECOND ORDER re 154 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and deferred in part. Defendant shall file a more specific declaration within a week.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/6/2016. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FRANK LUCIDO, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

10

SECOND ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.

9

NESTLE PURINA PET CARE COMPANY,

Docket No. 154

Defendant.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 15-cv-00569-EMC

Previously, the Court instructed the parties to meet and confer to more narrowly tailor the

13
14

above-referenced request to file under seal. (Plaintiffs formally moved to file under seal but

15

Purina was the party who claimed the information is confidential.) Having considered the parties’

16

joint brief regarding a narrowed request to file under seal (Docket No. 175) and the Borders

17

declaration in support (Docket No. 177), the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DEFERS in part

18

the motion to file under seal.
First, per the parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs shall publicly file the revised version of Exhibit

19
20
21

22
23

108.
Second, the Court grants the motion to file under seal with respect to the following
documents:


Plaintiffs’ opposition to Purina’s summary judgment motion. (Plaintiffs shall
publicly file the redacted version of the opposition.)

24
25



Exhibit 6.

26



Exhibit 9.

27



Exhibits 32-37.

28



Exhibits 39-92.



1

Exhibit 110.

Third, the Court defers ruling on the following documents. For these documents, the Court

2
3

is not satisfied that Purina has established compelling reasons for sealing, as required by

4

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that, for

5

dispositive motions, there must be compelling reasons to seal and not just good cause). Purina

6

shall reexamine the documents identified below and, if it continues to assert confidentiality, must

7

provide a more specific declaration to justify a filing under seal.


8

Exhibits 2-4. These documents are excerpts from a spreadsheet created by Purina

to the consumers. Purina admits that the consumer’s social media comments were

11

publicly posted. It argues, however, that what Purina tracks and how it responds is

12
For the Northern District of California

which tracked social media comments made by consumers and Purina’s responses

10

United States District Court

9

confidential and proprietary. But these documents are not policy-type documents,

13

for which a claim of confidentiality might plausibly be made. Moreover, given that

14

the documents are just excerpts, it would seem to be difficult to divine a Purina

15

policy or practice from the documents.


16

Exhibits 7-8, 10-31. These documents relate to consumer complaints made to

17

Purina and Purina’s responses thereto.1 Some of these documents appear to contain

18

more confidential-type information, such as (in effect) settlement offers or more

19

internal legal-type analysis. See, e.g., Exhibits 13-14. However, some of these

20

documents are simply assessments made by a veterinarian of a dog’s symptoms.

21

One document merely conveys who the adjuster working on the claim will be. See,

22

e.g., Exhibit 7. Purina cannot wholesale designate these exhibits as confidential

23

because they fall into a certain category but rather must evaluate them on a case-by-

24

case basis.


25

Exhibit 38. While this e-mail exchange between counsel regarding a reformulation
of Beneful contains some confidential information, the request to file under seal

26
27
28

1

The Court takes no issue with redaction of the names of the consumers.
2

1
2

can be more narrowly tailored.
Purina shall file its declaration within a week of the date of this order.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: October 6, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3