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)

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