Murphy v. Kavo America Corporation et al

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 32 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Documents Supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

MICHAEL MURPHY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
KAVO AMERICA CORPORATION,
DANAHER CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11 0410 YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS
OF DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING ITS MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
ADJUDICATION

17
18
19
20

Kavo Dental Technologies, LLC (“KaVo”) has moved the Court for an Order sealing
various portions of documents supporting its Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication.
A motion to seal documents that are part of the judicial record is governed by the

21

“compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.

22

2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported

23

by specific factual findings ... outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

24
25
26
27
28

favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant factors including the “public
interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result

1

in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade

2

secrets.” Id. at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)).

3

While the decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within the trial court's discretion, the trial

4
court must articulate its reasoning in deciding a motion to seal. Id. at 679. Given the importance
5
6
7

of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5
(a).

8

A.

9

KaVo contends that certain portions of three depositions, as well as certain other

10
11

Personal and Personnel Information of Third Parties

documents produced in discovery, should be sealed because they contain the birthdates, sales
performance rankings, and sales data for a group of employees, as well as draft performance

12
13

improvement plans and testimony reflecting on those plans and/or possible termination of certain

14

employees. KaVo contends these documents implicate Constitutionally-protected privacy

15

interests of KaVo’s employees and former employees. Employees and former employees who

16

are not parties to this litigation have privacy interests in their personnel information, and in other

17

sensitive identifying information such as dates of birth. See, e.g., Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

18

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by

19
sensitive, personal identifying information); Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v.
20
21

Sup. Ct., 119 Cal.App.3d 5165 (1981) (recognizing right of privacy in evaluations and other

22

information in personnel file). However, to the extent that redacting the identifying information

23

would provide the Court, and the public, with meaningful information and not prejudice the

24

individuals, documents containing private information should be filed in redacted form rather

25

than sealed in their entirety. Foltz, supra, 331 F.3d at 1137; U.S. ex rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pac.

26

Health, 2007 WL 128853 (D. Haw. Jan. 10, 2007). Third party privacy interests must be

27
28
2

1

balanced against the public’s interest in understanding the decisions made by the Court as a

2

public forum for administering justice.

3

In a case such as the one at bar, alleging illegal age discrimination in employment, some

4
amount of comparative evidence regarding the age, performance, discipline, and termination of
5
6

other employees is necessary. Thus, the Court cannot find compelling reasons to seal the entire

7

deposition pages and documents. Balancing the privacy and public disclosure interests, the

8

Court finds that a more narrowly tailed order to simply redact employee-identifying information

9

is appropriate.

10
11

B.

KaVo’s Sales Information

In addition, KaVo seeks to seal certain documents that include its sales data on the

12
13

grounds that publicly disclosure of this information would put KaVo at a competitive

14

disadvantage by revealing sales growth and decline, and therefore areas in which a competitor

15

sales group might be able to seize KaVo’s market share. Such concerns have been recognized as

16

a legitimate basis for sealing information which otherwise has no bearing on the litigation before

17

the court. See, e.g., In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Sec. Litigation, 141 FRD 155, 161-62 (N.D. Cal.

18

1992); Stone v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., 2011 WL 662972 at *1 (S.D.

19
Cal. 2011). There are thus compelling interests that overcome the public’s right of access to
20
21

such information within the documents. However, and as with the third party privacy interests

22

above, the Court finds that sealing the entire document rather than redacting out the sensitive

23

information is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to balance the competing interests here.

24
25
26

IT IS THUS ORDERED that KaVo’s administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The motion to seal the entire identified pages of Exhibits B, C, and D to the

27
Declaration of Eden Anderson in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or
28
3

1

Adjudication is DENIED.1 To the extent KaVo wishes to rely on the evidence therein, KaVo

2

may submit a redacted version of the testimony, identifying the persons to which the deponent is

3

referring by first name and last initial, to be filed in the public record. The Court notes that

4
KaVo has taken a similar approach to identifying employees and former employees in its
5
6

summary judgment motion papers.

7

2. The motion to seal Exhibit Q, pages numbered KaVo 000329-330 and the Verification

8

of Derek Snyder, is DENIED. To the extent KaVo wishes to rely on the evidence therein, KaVo

9

may submit a redacted version identifying employees by first name and last initial, and redacting

10
11

out the month and day, but not the year of birth.
3. The motion to seal Exhibit L in its entirety is DENIED. To the extent KaVo wishes to

12
13

rely on the evidence therein, KaVo may submit a redacted version identifying employees by first

14

name and last initial, and redacting out all information other than the associated rank numbers for

15

each employee and “change from prior month,” where that information is provided.

16
17
18

4. The motion to seal Exhibit M is GRANTED. The document is replete with sales data
that is highly sensitive for KaVo. These concerns outweigh the public interest value of the
information therein. The document cannot be redacted to provide meaningful information

19
otherwise. The Court therefore finds compelling reasons to seal the entire document.
20
21

5. With respect to Exhibits R and S, the Court finds that the documents contain both

22

personnel information and sales information that are properly sealed from the public record, but

23

that compelling reasons to seal the entire document have not been presented. The motion is

24

therefore DENIED. To the extent KaVo wishes to rely on the evidence therein, KaVo may

25
26
27
1

28

All further references to Exhibits refer to exhibits the Declaration of Eden Anderson in
Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication unless otherwise state.
4

1

submit a redacted version identifying the employee by first name and last initial, and redacting

2

all information under the headings of “objectives,” i.e, Exh. R, pages 2-3; Exh. S, pages 3-5.

3

Should KaVo elect to file redacted versions of the documents as set forth herein, it must

4
do so no later than May 7, 2012. See Local Rule 79-5(e). Otherwise the documents will not be
5
6
7

considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: April 27, 2012

____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5