Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Filing 223

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (This order grants docket no. 181 ).(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 181

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG

12
13

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal

14

documents in support of its motion to decertify the classes. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s

15

motion for the reasons described below.

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, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

19

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the

20

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

21

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

28

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

1

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

2

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

3

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records

4

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

5

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to

6
7

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

8

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

9

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5
supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are

12

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The

13

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

14
15

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

16

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80

17

(quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm

18

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

19

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of

20

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman

21

Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

22
23

II.

DISCUSSION
Defendant’s filings in connection with its motion to decertify the classes are more than

24

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, so the Court applies the “compelling

25

reasons” standard.

26

The current sealing requests seek to seal information that contain confidential business and

27

financial information relating to the operations of Defendant, including sensitive marketing

28

information. Dkt. No. 181; Dkt. No. 181-1 at ¶¶ 3–15. The Court previously granted some of the
2

1

sealing requests seeking to seal materially identical information. See Dkt. No. 134.
The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of Defendant’s

2
3

administrative motion to seal, given that the parties filed a notice of settlement and joint

4

stipulation to vacate all dates before the hearing on Defendant’s motion to decertify the classes.

5

Dkt. Nos. 193, 195. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the

6

judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is

7

minimal given that the Court will not rule on Defendant’s motion to decertify the classes. See In

8

re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov.

9

25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light
of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business and financial

12

information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the

13

Court finds that there is compelling reason to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City

14

& Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,

15

2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive

16

information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe

17

v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14,

18

2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling

19

reasons to seal the exhibit).

20

III.

21

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Pursuant to

22

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

23

granted will remain under seal.

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/20/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
3