Doyle v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P.

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson granting in part and denying in part 25 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 28 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (tshlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2021)

Download PDF
Case 3:19-cv-05678-TSH Document 37 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRUCE DOYLE, Plaintiff, 8 GALDERMA, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 27, 28, 30, 31 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 9 10 Case No. 19-cv-05678 (TSH) 12 13 14 15 Before the Court are two Administrative Motions to File Under Seal pursuant to Local Rules 79-5 and 7-11: (1) Defendant Galderma Laboratories, L.P.’s (“Galderma”) February 4, 2021 16 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (“Galderma’s Motion to Seal”), ECF No. 25, documents 17 that it filed in connection with its pending Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, 18 Partial Summary Adjudication (“Summary Judgment Motion”), ECF No. 26; and 19 (2) Plaintiff Bruce Doyle’s February 18, 2021 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 20 (“Doyle’s Motion to Seal”), ECF No. 28, which is actually a motion to permit Doyle to file 21 documents not under seal in order to support his Opposition to Galderma’s Summary Judgment 22 Motion, ECF No. 29. 23 A. 24 In Galderma’s Motion to Seal, it seeks to file under seal materials it believes contain 25 Galderma’s Motion to Seal private information of non-parties and its own confidential and proprietary business information. 26 i. Flores Declaration 27 Galderma asserts that Exhibits C, G, and H to the Declaration of Edith Flores filed in 28 support of Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (“Flores Declaration”), ECF No. 26, Case 3:19-cv-05678-TSH Document 37 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 4 1 contain private performance-management and personnel records of third parties who are not 2 participants in this lawsuit and that Exhibits C, D, and F to the Declaration of Ken Curley filed in 3 support of Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (“Curley Declaration”), ECF No. 26, 4 contains Galderma’s confidential and proprietary business information. 5 With respect to the Flores Declaration, Galderma asserts that Exhibits C, G, and H contain private performance-management and personnel records of third parties who are not participants in 7 this lawsuit. Though much discussion of privacy rights of nonparties centers around discovery 8 disputes, the California Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. Cal. Const., 9 art. I, § 1. “Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern.” Board of 10 Registered Nursing v. Superior Court of Orange County, 59 Cal. App. 5th 1011, 1039, review 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 denied April 21, 2021. 12 Exhibit C to the Flores Declaration is a Performance Improvement Plan detailing 13 performance shortcomings and criticism of a Galderma employee who is not a party to this 14 lawsuit. Upon examination of this exhibit, it contains information which, if known about the 15 employee, could harm him as it may reflect badly on him for future employment. This document 16 could not be easily redacted, as it contains information, including dates and locations of work- 17 related activities, throughout it that could serve to identify him. Contrast Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 18 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Simply redacting the identifying information 19 of third parties ... and disclosing the remaining information would not injure third parties but 20 would reveal only [the defendant's] actions in processing personal injury claims.”). The 21 constitutionally-protected privacy interests of this employee present compelling reasons to justify 22 a sealing order. The Court thus finds that the public’s interest in accessing this document is 23 outweighed by the privacy interests of the third-party employee. Accordingly, Galderma’s Motion 24 to Seal is GRANTED with respect to Exhibit C. 25 Exhibits G and H are Separation Letters discussing the termination of former Galderma 26 employees who are not parties to this lawsuit. As in Foltz, “We do not see how the presence of a 27 small number of third-party . . . personnel records that can be redacted with minimal effort 28 constitutes ‘good cause,’ let alone a compelling reason, for this protective order to overcome the 2 Case 3:19-cv-05678-TSH Document 37 Filed 04/27/21 Page 3 of 4 1 strong presumption in favor of public access.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. These documents have 2 already been partially redacted to remove some personally identifiable information and can easily 3 be further redacted. Accordingly, Galderma’s Motion to Seal is DENIED with respect to Exhibits 4 G and H. Galderma is ORDERED to REDACT the names, dates of separation, and end dates of 5 insurance coverage contained in Exhibits G and H and to file the redacted versions in the public 6 record no later than April 28, 2021. 7 ii. Curley Declaration 8 With respect to the Curley Declaration, Galderma asserts that Exhibits C, D, and F contain 9 Galderma’s confidential and proprietary business information, including confidential, proprietary, and strategic budgeting, sales, and marketing information. Galderma argues that “Potential 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 wrongdoers who view this information would have unfair access to Galderma’s protected, trade 12 secret information. Production of this trade secret information, would be detrimental to 13 Defendant.” Galderma’s Motion to Seal, pp. 4-5. 14 Exhibit C to the Curley Declaration is a January 2019 email discussing Galderma’s 15 regional extended selling budgets and allocation thereof. Exhibit D is a December 2018 email 16 discussing Galderma’s regional sales and marketing programming allocations. Exhibit F is an 17 April 2019 report detailing the confidential sales targets and sales results for all sales professionals 18 in Galderma’s prescription business sales organization for the first quarter of 2019. Galderma 19 claims these contain confidential, proprietary and strategic information about sales and marketing 20 related to Galderma’s prescription business sales organization. The Court agrees. Galderma’s 21 motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibits C, D and F. Doyle’s Motion to Seal 22 B. 23 In his Motion to Seal, Doyle requests the Court to order that certain documents may be 24 filed in the public record. Doyle contends the following documents should not be filed under seal: 25 Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Ian Doyle In Support of Doyle’s Opposition to Galderma’s 26 Motion for Summary Judgment (“Doyle Declaration”), and Exhibits 1-7 to the Declaration of 27 Counsel Robert Wallace In Support of Doyle’s Opposition to Galderma’s Motion for Summary 28 Judgment (“Wallace Declaration”). 3 Case 3:19-cv-05678-TSH Document 37 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 4 1 The crux of Doyle’s argument is that if the personally identifying information in these 2 documents is not made public it will hamper his ability to prove his claims of age discrimination. 3 He appears to be under the misapprehension that filing a document under seal means the evidence 4 won’t be considered by the Court in ruling on the Summary Judgment Motion. This, of course, is 5 untrue. He also argues that sealing these documents would “defeat[] the purpose of providing 6 public access to civil rights actions such as this.” Doyle’s Motion to Seal, p. 4. The Court agrees 7 as to some of these documents and disagrees as to others. 8 i. Doyle Declaration 9 Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Doyle Declaration consist, respectively, of “a chronological sampling of some of the awards, raises, and bonuses I received during the course of [Doyle’s] 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 career” (Doyle Decl., ¶ 2) and Doyle’s 2018 Performance Review. Doyle himself requests that his 12 own documents be filed publicly and Galderma does not object. Accordingly, Doyle’s Motion is 13 GRANTED with respect to Exhibits 1 and 2. Doyle is ORDERED to file these documents in the 14 public record no later than April 28, 2021. 15 ii. Wallace Declaration 16 Galderma objects to the public filing of Exhibits 1-4 to the Wallace Declaration because 17 they contain Galderma’s confidential and proprietary business information and to the public filing 18 of Exhibits 5-7 because they contain the full birthdates of third parties. The Court agrees on both 19 counts. The Court ORDERS that these Exhibits remain under seal and ORDERS Doyle to file 20 public versions of Exhibits 5-7 by April 28, 2021, with the month and date of an individual’s 21 birthdate redacted. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: April 27, 2021 25 26 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 4

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?