Plascencia et al v. Lending 1st Mortgage et al

Filing 438

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EMCS 362 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 ARMANDO PLASCENCIA; and MELANIA PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 v. No. C 07-4485 CW ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EMC’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 362) LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE; LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE, LLC; EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants. ________________________________/ Defendant EMC Mortgage LLC, formerly known as EMC Mortgage 13 Corporation, moves to file under seal the declaration of LeAnn 14 Pedersen Pope offered in support of EMC’s omnibus brief regarding 15 its motion to decertify the class, its motion for summary judgment 16 and in opposition to Plaintiffs Armando and Melania Plascencia’s 17 motion for partial summary judgment and its separate motions to 18 exclude the testimony of Leonard Lyons and Jonathan Macey. 19 In EMC’s declaration in support of its motion to seal, it 20 represents that it has filed separately in the public record the 21 declaration of Susan Miller Overbey, to which it has attached 22 redacted versions of the same exhibits attached to the Pope 23 declaration. Overbey Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ¶ 7. See 24 Docket No. 359. Pursuant to the Court’s August 27, 2012 order, 25 EMC has also provided the Court with a copy of the Pope 26 declaration in which it has indicated which portions of the 27 exhibits it seeks to seal. 28 The Court addresses below only the 1 portions of the Pope declaration that are not already publicly 2 available in the corresponding attachment to the Overbey 3 declaration. 4 EMC’s filings are connected to a dispositive motion. 5 establish that the documents are sealable, EMC “must overcome a 6 strong presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons 7 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general 8 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” 9 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) To United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 (citation omitted). 11 that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating 12 in general terms that the material is considered to be 13 confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration 14 demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document 15 under seal. 16 This cannot be established simply by showing Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). In its declaration in support of its motion to seal, EMC 17 represents that certain documents contain confidential borrower 18 information regarding Plaintiffs and the putative class members, 19 including their loan numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, 20 credits scores and details regarding their loans that are 21 protected from disclosure under federal and state law. 22 Decl. ¶ 6. 23 finds EMC has established that this constitutes compelling reasons 24 to seal the following documents and excerpts and GRANTS EMC’s 25 motion as to these items: 26 27 28 1. Having reviewed the documents at issue, the Court Exhibit A, Deposition Ex. 16 (highlighted portions only); 2. Overbey Exhibit M (highlighted portions only); 2 1 3. Exhibit N (highlighted portions only); 2 4. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (highlighted portion of page 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EMC/PLAS 01558 only); 5. Exhibit R (loan numbers in highlighted portions of deposition transcript only); 6. Exhibit R, Deposition Exs. 1, 7 and 8 (highlighted portions only); 7. Exhibit R, Deposition Ex. 6 (highlighted portion of page EMC/AMP 0116 only); and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 8. 11 In its declaration in support of its motion to seal, EMC Exhibit S (highlighted portions only). 12 represents that certain documents contain nonpublic information 13 about the terms of the contractual agreements under which EMC 14 purchased loans from Lending 1st and other originating lenders. 15 Overbey Decl. ¶ 5. 16 information would likely cause it harm by allowing other loan 17 originators to gain an advantage over EMC and its related entities 18 when negotiating the terms and pricing of mortgage loan purchase 19 agreements with EMC and related entities and also by allowing its 20 competitors to gain an advantage over EMC when they negotiate with 21 loan originators. 22 the Court finds EMC has established that this constitutes 23 compelling reasons to seal the following documents and excerpts 24 and GRANTS EMC’s motion as to these items: It states that public disclosure of this Id. Having reviewed the documents at issue, 25 1. Exhibit A, Deposition Ex. 19 (all); 26 2. Exhibit B, Deposition Exs. 4 and 5 (all); 27 3. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (pages EMC/PLAS 01559-73) 28 (all); and 3 1 4. 2 EMC shall file under seal the documents identified in the 3 4 Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 6 (all). above two lists within four days of the date of this Order. The Court finds EMC has not established compelling reasons to 5 seal the documents and excerpts listed below. 6 that some of these documents have already been filed in the public 7 record of this case in an identical or substantially similar form 8 or that the information that EMC seeks to seal has already been 9 revealed publicly in other filings. The Court notes The Court also finds that EMC United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 has not provided compelling reasons to seal its organization 11 structure and has instead made conclusory statements that this is 12 kept confidential and that it invested time into developing the 13 structure, without explaining in sufficient detail how it would 14 suffer harm if its structure were publicly revealed. 15 not offered sufficient reason to justify sealing any portion of 16 the deposition transcript of Leonard Lyons, other than the loan 17 numbers to which the testimony refers. 18 to seal is DENIED as to these documents and excerpts and EMC is 19 directed to file these items in the public record within four days 20 of the date of this Order: EMC has also Accordingly, EMC’s motion 21 1. Exhibit B, Ex. 2; 22 2. Exhibit C, Ex. 14 (see Docket No. 238-1); 23 3. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 3 (see Docket No. 62); 24 4. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (pages EMC/PLAS 015574-75); 25 5. Exhibit R (highlighted portions of deposition 26 transcript, other than loan numbers); 27 6. 28 No. 62); and Exhibit R, Deposition Exs. 2, 3, 4, and 5 (see Docket 4 1 2 3 7. Exhibit R, Deposition Ex. 6 (page EMC/AMP 0114) (see Docket No. 62). IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 Dated: 3/28/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?