Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

Filing 172

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying #162 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and Exhibits. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MONTEVILLE SLOAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS
CERTIFICATION MOTION AND
EXHIBITS
Docket No. 162

12
13

Plaintiffs have filed a motion related to the sealing of their Motion for Class Certification

14

and certain exhibits pertaining thereto. Having reviewed the motion and accompanying exhibits,

15

the Court hereby DENIES the motion and orders the parties to more narrowly tailor their request

16

to comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5 and precedential law of the Ninth Circuit.

17

“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and

18

documents, including judicial records and documents. . . . [And] unless a particular court record is

19

one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Oliner

20

v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014).

21

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79–5(b), “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a request that

22

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

23

otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek

24

sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. Loc. R. 79–5(b). The intention behind the rule is that

25

what is available to the public “has the minimum redactions necessary to protect sealable

26

information.” Comment. Civ. Loc. R. 79–5(b). Furthermore, “[r]eference to a stipulation or

27

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

28

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. Loc. R. 79–5(d)(1)(A).

1

Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Class Certification and nineteen exhibits comprising

2

hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. Each document was requested sealed in its

3

entirety. While the Court recognizes that sealing documents in their entirety may be appropriate in

4

some circumstances—including for some of the documents at issue here—it finds the current

5

request to file under seal to be far too broadly constructed. For instance, many pages of deposition

6

transcripts and other exhibits discuss information that is widely available to the public, or at the

7

very least not “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection.” Civ.

8

Loc. R. 79–5(b). Moreover, there is no basis for filing the entire Motion for Class Certification

9

under seal.

10

Parties are ordered to meet and confer and agree upon a Motion to Seal that conforms with

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Civil Local Rule 79–5(b). Plaintiffs are ordered to re-file their Motion for Class Certification and

12

exhibits within 21 days of the date of this order. The current motion and exhibits will remain

13

under seal.

14

This order disposes of Docket No. 162.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: August 14, 2019

19
20
21

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2