Caudle et al v. Sprint/United Management Company

Filing 46

ORDER ON 30 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2018)

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

JOSHUA CAUDLE and KRYSTLE
WHITE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, a Kansas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants.
/

17
18

No. C 17-06874 WHA

In connection with plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, plaintiffs filed an

19

administrative motion to file under seal various exhibits containing material designated as

20

“confidential” by defendant Sprint/United Management Company pursuant to the parties’

21

stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 30).

22

In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

23

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

24

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

25

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

26

related” to the merits bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons”

27

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for

28

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). A particularized showing of

1

“good cause” under FRCP 26(c), however, suffices to warrant sealing of judicial records in

2

connection with a non-dispositive motion. Id. at 1179–80.

3

Our court of appeals has not ruled on whether a motion for class certification is more

4

than tangentially related to the merits for the purposes of determining whether the compelling

5

reasons standard applies. “[M]ost district courts to consider the question,” however, “have found

6

that a motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of

7

action and therefore merits application of the compelling reasons standard. Philips v. Ford

8

Motor Co., No. C 14-02989 LHK, 2016 WL 7374214, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (Judge

9

Lucy Koh). Here, it is certainly the case that the issues raised at class certification were
intertwined with the merits of the action, and therefore this order applies the compelling reasons

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

standard.

12

With the foregoing principles in mind, this order finds that Sprint has failed to show a

13

compelling reason for sealing the exhibits related to (1) compensation documents that explain

14

Sprint’s incentive compensation structure for its retail salesforce, (2) an email thread

15

summarizing changes to Sprint’s retail incentive compensation program, and (3) Sprint’s retail

16

satisfaction survey. Sprint cites its desire “to keep its compensation structure documents private

17

and confidential” in order “[t]o maintain its competitive advantage” and the fact that the

18

information “is not generally known to the public or to [Sprint’s] competitors” (see Dkt. No. 33

19

¶¶ 5, 7–8). Such vague notions of competitive harm upon public disclosure, however, are

20

outweighed by the strong public interest in disclosure.

21

Sprint also seeks to seal the damages spreadsheet, attached as Exhibit F to the Haines

22

Declaration. It explains that the exhibit contains private financial information of employees (id.

23

¶ 6). Moreover, that specific information, to the extent not already revealed elsewhere, proved

24

unnecessary to adjudicate plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Under these circumstances,

25

this order finds compelling reasons to keep the damages spreadsheet under seal. This is without

26

prejudice to whether the same material could be filed under seal at a later proceeding.

27
28
2

1

Accordingly, the administrative motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the

2

extent stated above. Plaintiffs shall file on the public docket unredacted versions of the

3

documents that comport with this order by JANUARY 4, 2019 AT NOON.

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6

Dated: December 18, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3