Eidler et al v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. et al

Filing 459

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 264 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STACIA STINER, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10
11

BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et
al.,

Case No. 17-cv-03962-HSG
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 264

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

13
14

portions of the Proof of Service of the Motion for Substitution (“Proof of Service”). Dkt. No. 264

15

(“Mot.”). Plaintiffs seek to seal the Proof of Service and attached exhibits to remove any personal

16

identifying information of the named Plaintiffs’ family members. For the following reasons, the

17

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

18
19

I.

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

20

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

omitted).
Records attached to non-dispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

2
3

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

4

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This

5

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

6

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

7

Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

8

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

9

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

10

II.

Because the Proof of Service and associated documents that Plaintiffs seek to seal are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

12

attached to a non-dispositive Motion for Substitution, the Court applies the lower “good cause”

13

standard.

14

Plaintiffs filed the Proof of Service for the limited purpose of showing that their nonparty

15

family members had notice of and did not oppose the underlying Motion for Substitution, which

16

the Court has already granted. See Dkt. No. 260. Plaintiffs seek to redact from the Proof of

17

Service the names and addresses of their nonparty family members. See Mot. at 3.
The Court finds that the names and addresses of Plaintiffs’ nonparty family members have

18
19

minimal relevance and are at best “only tangentially related” to the underlying causes of action

20

and therefore need not be accessible to the public. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Moreover, the

21

nonparty family members have legitimate privacy interests in keeping their identities private. See

22

Chloe SAS v. Sawabeh Info. Servs. Co., No. 11-CV-04147-MMM, 2015 WL 12734004, at *3

23

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2015) (finding privacy interests of nonparties sufficient to justify sealing under

24

the good cause standard and citing cases); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB,

25

2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information

26

and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit).

27

//

28

//
2

1

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/29/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3