Perez v. TLC Residential Inc et al

Filing 384

ORDER RE 374 382 ADMINISTRATION MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of
Labor, United States Department of Labor,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 15-02776 WHA

v.

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

TLC RESIDENTIAL, INC., and
FRANCISCO MONTERO,
Defendants.
/

17
18

In connection with an ex parte application to show cause why defendant Francisco

19

Montero should not be held in contempt of orders prohibiting retaliation of witnesses, both

20

sides filed administrative motions to file under seal.

21

Our analysis begins with a “strong presumption” in favor of access to court records.

22

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

23

2003). For non-dispositive motions, the “good cause” standard applies and there must be a

24

“particularized showing” that specific harm or prejudice will result if the information is

25

disclosed. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

The Secretary moves to file under seal portions of his application as well as the

27

witness’s declaration and most exhibits — Exhibits A–E and G–L — in whole on the basis that

28

such documents “contain (1) scurrilous material that the Secretary contends is being used to
retaliate against a witness and/or (2) material tending to identify that witness” (Pilotin Decl. ¶¶

1

3–5). Good cause is shown for sealing the aforementioned information. The Secretary’s

2

blanket request to file under seal the exhibits, however, is overbroad. For example, the

3

Secretary seeks to seal substantial swaths of emails wholly unrelated to the witness. As such,

4

the Secretary’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Secretary may file

5

under seal only portions of the exhibits that refer specifically (directly or indirectly) to the

6

witness and the alleged acts at issue.

7

Montero moves to file under seal limited portions of his response to the order to show

8

cause, his declaration, and Pamela Davis’s declaration (Dkt. No. 382). The information

9

Montero seeks to redact is narrowly tailored to the witness’s identity and the alleged acts at

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

issue. Good cause having been shown, Montero’s motion is GRANTED.
Both parties shall file redacted versions of the aforementioned documents that fully
comport with this order by OCTOBER 26 AT NOON.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: October 17, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2