Mitzie Perez et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al

Filing 266

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS. Plaintiffs are directed to file their Fifth Amended Complaint in the public record and to do so no later than July 19, 2019. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 12, 2019. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2019)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MITZIE PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-00454-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
PORTIONS OF FIFTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT; DIRECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS
Re: Dkt. No. 261

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiffs' Administrative Motion, filed July 1, 2019, "to Seal

14

Portions of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint."1 Defendant has filed a response and

15

declaration in support thereof. Having read and considered the parties' respective written

16

submissions, the Court rules as follows.

17

In the redacted version of their Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"), plaintiffs allege

18

defendant has a policy of denying certain types of credit to aliens who "hold Deferred

19

Action for Childhood Arrivals ('DACA') status" (see 5AC ¶ 2); plaintiffs allege defendant,

20

in furtherance of said policy, uses seven specified "decline codes" that "reflect a credit

21

denial based on alienage and immigration status" (see 5AC ¶¶ 83, 85-86; see also 5AC

22

¶ 84). As the decline codes have been designated confidential by defendant, plaintiffs,

23

as required by the Civil Local Rules of this district, have redacted said codes from the

24

public version of the 5AC, see Civil L.R. 79-5(e), and, as they correctly note in the instant

25

administrative motion, defendant, as the designating party, has the burden to establish

26
27
28

1

By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has approved the parties'
stipulation to allow plaintiffs to file a Fifth Amended Complaint.

1
2

the codes are properly filed under seal, see Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
A party seeking to seal a "judicial record . . . must articulate compelling reasons
supported by specific fact[s] . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the

4

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

5

judicial process." See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-

6

79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations, alteration and citations omitted); see also, e.g.,

7

Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., 2014 WL 4145520, at *2 (N.D. Cal. August 20, 2014)

8

(considering whether movant established "sufficiently compelling reasons" to seal

9

portions of complaint). A showing that consists of "conclusory statements about the

10

content of the documents," e.g., "that they are confidential and that, in general, their

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

production [to the public] would hinder [the designating party's] future operations," is

12

insufficient to establish the requisite "compelling reasons." See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

13

1182; see also Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding

14

"conclusory statement that publication of the [judicial record] will injure the [designating

15

party] in the industry and local community falls woefully short of the kind of showing

16

which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be kept under seal") (internal

17

quotation and citation omitted).

18

Here, the declaration filed by defendant in support of the instant motion does not

19

itself address whether the specific denial codes are properly filed under seal. Rather, it

20

asserts that this Court, as well as Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, to whom

21

discovery disputes in the case were referred, have granted prior requests to file "the

22

same or similar documents under seal." (See deVyver Decl. ¶ 3.)2 Each of the

23

referenced sealing orders, however, granted a request to file under seal documents that

24

detail the processes and procedures by which defendant determines whether to provide

25
26
27
28

2

The declaration also asserts that plaintiffs have not complied with the procedures
in the parties' Joint Stipulated Protective Order as to challenging an opposing party's
designations. (See id. ¶ 4.) Any such failure, however, is not dispositive of the issue
before the Court, which is whether defendant has shown a compelling reason exists to
file portions of a pleading under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
2

1

credit to applicants, or similar practices by defendant; none of the cited orders addresses

2

whether the denial codes, standing alone, would be properly filed under seal.

3

Defendant also relies on a declaration it previously submitted in support an earlier-

4

filed administrative motion to seal, specifically, the declaration of Pauline Reid, filed April

5

17, 2018. In said declaration, the declarant asserts that certain documents filed in

6

connection with a then-pending motion to strike were sealable because they disclose

7

defendant's "credit underwriting considerations and risk scoring," or "information relating

8

to eligibility and information required from applicants," or "information relating to

9

[defendant's] software and credit decision-making systems." (See Reid Decl. ¶ 5.) The
declarant does not address whether, let alone identify any compelling reason why, denial

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

codes, standing alone, are properly filed under seal.

12
13

Moreover, as plaintiffs point out, defendant previously has placed one of the denial
codes in the public record. (See Doc. No. 247-1 at 15:18-22.)

14

In light of the above, the Court finds defendant has not shown compelling reasons

15

exist to file the denial codes under seal and, accordingly, plaintiff's administrative motion

16

is hereby DENIED.

17
18
19

Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file their Fifth Amended Complaint
in the public record and to do so no later than July 19, 2019. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: July 12, 2019
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3