Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Filing 132

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 71 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 71

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG

12

Pending before the Court is Plaitniffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions

13

of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (“Motion

14

for Relief”). Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, the Court GRANTS

15

the administrative motion to file under seal.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

18

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

19

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

20

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

21

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

22

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

24

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

25

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79

26

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

27

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

28

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

1

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

2

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must

3

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

4

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

5

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

6

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal

7

quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

8
9

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

12

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

13

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

14

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must

15

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at

16

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or

17

harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

18

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

19

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

20
21

II.

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “good cause” standard because the documents at issue, related

22

to Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s discovery order, are only tangentially

23

related to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101.

24

Plaintiffs seek to seal (1) portions of the Motion for Relief, (2) portions of Plaintiff

25

Schneider’s deposition transcript, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Matthew B. George,

26

and (3) portions of the Declaration of Sandra Coller. Plaintiffs contend that portions of these

27

documents contain Plaintiff Schneider and Ms. Coller’s sensitive and protected health information.

28

The Court agrees, and finds that the designated portions Plaintiffs’ motion, exhibits, and
2

1

declaration satisfy the standard because portions of those documents describe sensitive health

2

information. See Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 12-CV-03844-

3

JST, 2015 WL 984121, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2015); Webb v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery

4

Grp., LLC, No. 13-CV-00737-JD, 2014 WL 12642192, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014); Hunt v.

5

Cont'l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015).

6

The Court also finds the requested redactions to be sufficiently narrowly tailored to protect both

7

the parties’ interests and the public interest in access.

8

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil Local

10

Rule 79-5(f)(1), those documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is granted

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted versions accompanying

12

the administrative motion.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/28/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3