Felix v. Symantec Corporation et al
Filing
433
ORDER DENYING 403 & 412 MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by William Alsup. (whalc5, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2022)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 18-02902 WHA
v.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
SYMANTEC CORPORATION and
GREGORY S. CLARK,
Defendants.
Two motions to seal remain pending in this case. In the first, the parties seek to file a
18
supplemental agreement to the class settlement under seal (Dkt. No. 403). In the second, class
19
counsel seek to redact descriptions of their billing records filed in connection with their motion
20
for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 412). For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.
21
The public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
22
including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
23
597 (1978). “This right is justified by the interests of citizens in keeping a watchful eye on the
24
workings of public agencies.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178
25
(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
26
“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in
27
favor of access is the starting point. A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the
28
burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.
1
That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,
2
that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as
3
the public interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the court must conscientiously
4
balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial
5
records secret.” Id. at 1178–79 (cleaned up).
6
“What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound discretion of the trial
7
court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote
8
public scandal, to circulate libelous statements, or as sources of business information that
9
might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,
10
809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
The compelling reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Id. at 1098. But a
12
good cause standard applies to sealing of documents that are unrelated or only tangentially
13
related to the underlying cause of action. Ibid. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking
14
protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective
15
order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11
16
(9th Cir. 2002).
17
Here, two motions to seal remain outstanding. In the first (Dkt. No. 403), the parties seek
18
to file a supplemental agreement to the class settlement under seal. The agreement gives
19
Symantec the right to terminate the settlement if requests for exclusion exceed the amount
20
specified in the supplemental agreement. Because final approval of the settlement has already
21
been granted (Dkt. No. 421), the opt-out threshold is no longer relevant and no compelling
22
reason exists to justify sealing. Thus, the motion is DENIED.
23
In the second motion, class counsel seek to seal all the descriptions of billing time
24
records submitted in connection with counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 412).
25
Counsel justify this by asserting that the records may reveal the identities of two employees
26
whose identities have been kept hidden throughout this litigation (Robinson Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. No.
27
412-1). This order is unpersuaded. Tellingly, counsel did not identify any specific time
28
records — out of hundreds of pages of records — that place the employees’ identities at risk.
2
1
The time records plainly identify the employees only as FE1 and FE2 (short for “Former
2
Employee 1” and “Former Employee 2,” respectively). Additionally, counsel broadly assert
3
that the time records would reveal counsel’s “litigation strategy, . . . including, for example,
4
researching specific areas of the law and other privileged information” (id. at ¶ 3). This
5
overbroad justification falls short of our Local Rules' requirements and falls short of good
6
cause. See Civ. L.R. 79-5. Counsel again fail to identify any specific information that is
7
privileged. The class deserves to know what justifications may exist for attorney's fees that are
8
siphoned from their recovery. It was ill-advised to seek to seal these descriptions and the
9
Court regrets that class members were unable to scrutinize the billing records before now. The
10
motion to seal as to the billing records is DENIED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: May 10, 2022.
15
16
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?