Lindsey v. United Airlines Inc. et al

Filing 165

ORDER RE 104 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 EDDIE LINDSEY, an individual, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. / 14 15 No. C 17-00753 WHA Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to file under seal in connection with 16 defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 104). This order resolves the 17 administrative motion. 18 In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding 19 whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 20 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To 21 seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons 22 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 23 policies favoring disclosure.” See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted). 24 Plaintiff moved to file under seal the entirety of his opposition to defendant’s motion for 25 summary judgment, in addition to Exhibits 19, 21, 28, 43 and 59 in support of his opposition, 26 pursuant to defendant’s confidentiality designations. Defendant responded that Exhibits 21 and 27 28 did not require sealing (Dkt. No. 106). 28 As an initial matter, this order DENIES defendant’s request that Exhibits 19, 43 and 59 — and portions of plaintiff’s opposition referencing or quoting those exhibits — remain under 1 seal until the Court decides defendant’s motions in limine. Whether these documents are 2 admissibile at trial is irrelevant to the instant sealing motion. 3 Defendant contends that unsealing Exhibit 19, a settlement agreement entered into 4 between Lindsey, Lindsey’s ex-wife, and Continental Airlines, “would permanently deny 5 United the confidentiality for which the three parties bargained.” Defendant argues that “[o]f 6 particular sensitivity” are (1) the settlement dollar amounts; (2) any mention or provision 7 relating directly to Lindsey’s ex-wife; and (3) the names and personal identifying information of 8 two non-parties contained in Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement. Defendant’s request to 9 seal the dates of hire and dates of birth contained in Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement is 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 GRANTED. Defendant’s request is otherwise DENIED. Defendant also seeks to maintain under seal those portions of Exhibits 43 and 59 which 12 either reference or transcribe a recording of a 2016 United management meeting. Defendant 13 argues that plaintiff has submitted the evidence solely as an attempt to “improperly and illegally 14 smear and harm reputation.” This order disagrees. Defendant has not shown compelling 15 reasons to maintain these documents under seal and the request is accordingly DENIED. 16 Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and 17 Exhibits 21, 28, 43, and 59 thereto, on the public record by MAY 18. By that same date, 18 plaintiff shall file a redacted version of Exhibit 19 which comports with this order. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: May 11, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?