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

Filing 460

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 276 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Motions due by 4/6/2022. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2022)

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 IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 276

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal documents in

14

support of their Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. No. 276 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons,

15

the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ administrative motion.

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.

6

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

7

to file under seal must submit a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

8

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

9

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

10

Id.
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

II.

DISCUSSION

20

Plaintiffs move to file under seal portions of the exhibits and declarations filed in support

21

of their Motion for Class Certification. This Court follows numerous other district courts within

22

the Ninth Circuit in concluding that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal

23

documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-

24

07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6387381, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) (collecting cases).

25

Plaintiffs seek to redact or file under seal various documents that have either been

26

designated by Defendants as “Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order or discuss the

27

substance of such documents. See Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs only seek to redact or seal these

28

documents to comply with their obligations under the Protective Order and do not themselves
2

1

contend that there are “compelling reasons” to do so. Id. at 4-5. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5,

2

Defendants, as the Designating Party, were required to file a statement and/or declaration

3

describing the applicable legal standard and the reasons for filing the documents under seal. Civil

4

L.R. 79-5(f). Defendants filed a declaration to that effect in September 2021, in which they

5

clarified that they seek to seal “far less material” than Plaintiffs conditionally filed under seal. See

6

Dkt. No. 304, Declaration of Jordan Vick in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File

7

Under Seal (“Vick Decl”) at 2. Specifically, Defendants seek to seal the following four categories

8

of exhibits.

9

First, Defendants seek to redact portions of certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of
Guy B. Wallace, see Dkt. No. 278-1, that contain contact and other personally-identifying

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information for employees, residents, and/or individuals affiliated with third-party entities. Vick

12

Decl. ¶ 4(a). This personally-identifying information includes email addresses, telephone

13

numbers, and names. Id. Courts in this District routinely find compelling reasons to seal

14

personally-identifying information that has minimal relevance to the underlying causes of action.

15

See Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal.

16

May 14, 2021) (“This Court has found compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable

17

information.”); Am. Automobile Ass'n of N. Cal., Nev., & Utah, 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D.

18

Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information,

19

“including names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses”); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard

20

Co., 2014 WL 233827, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (granting motion to seal personal

21

information, including a home address, phone number, and email address). The Court concurs

22

here and accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 8-11, 16, 31-35, 37-42, 46, and

23

50-51 to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace (Dkt. No. 278-1), as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(a).

24

Second, Defendants seek to redact portions of certain exhibits attached to the Declaration

25

of Guy B. Wallace and portions of the Declaration of Cristina Flores that, they contend, contain

26

confidential, non-public proprietary information developed by entities affiliated with Defendants

27

at their own expense for their own use. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b). This information includes, among

28

other things, copies of Brookdale’s Quick Reference Guide entitled “Using the Personal Service
3

System (PSS) Online,” Brookdale’s Personal Service Assessment and Personal Service Plan

2

Interpretive Guidelines, and deposition testimony regarding Brookdale’s policies, procedures, and

3

practices. See id.; Dkt. No. 276-7. Defendants contend that allowing its competitors to obtain this

4

information would cause competitive injury to its affiliated entities. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b). The Court

5

finds compelling reasons to seal this proprietary information. See Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250, at

6

*2-3 (granting motion to file under seal confidential information regarding technology because

7

competitive harm would result from disclosure of such information); Baird v. BlackRock

8

Institutional Trust Co., N.A., 403 F. Supp. 3d 765, 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (granting motion to seal

9

sensitive and proprietary information); Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-CV-

10

00119, 2017 WL 11527607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) (granting motions to seal highly

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

confidential and proprietary information that was not publicly available and could result in unfair

12

competitive advantage to competitors). The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to

13

Exhibits 16-17, 24, 29, and 51-52 to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, and the Declaration of

14

Cristina Flores (ECF No. 278-4), as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b).

15

Third, Defendants seek to redact pages BKD1599048-57 of Exhibit 11 attached to the

16

Declaration of Guy B. Wallace. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(c). Exhibit 11 is a copy of a document that

17

includes Defendants’ contract with “Bus Finders,” dated March 22, 2016. See Dkt. No. 276-7 ¶

18

24. This contract contains a confidentiality provision which generally states that the information it

19

contains is proprietary, confidential, and may not be disclosed without the written consent of Bus

20

Finders. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(c). Defendants contend that the disclosure of this information could harm

21

not only its competitive standing, but also that of its affiliated entities and Bus Finders. Id. Courts

22

in this District have found compelling reasons to seal confidential information regarding a party’s

23

business partners where the disclosure of that information could harm the party’s competitive

24

standing. See Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3; FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-220-LHK,

25

2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting motion to seal under the compelling to

26

the extent it may harm the party or third parties’ “competitive standing and divulges terms of

27

confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets.”). The Court comes to the same

28

conclusion here and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Guy B.
4

1

Wallace, as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(c).
Fourth, Defendants seek to seal Exhibits 47-49 attached to the Declaration of Guy B.

3

Wallace. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(d). These documents are detailed corrective action and action plan forms

4

for Defendants’ employees. Defendants contend, and the Court agrees, that these documents

5

constitute confidential employment records in which Defendants’ employees have a reasonable

6

expectation of privacy. Id. Disclosure of this confidential information to the public could result in

7

unnecessary embarrassment and injury to those employees. Moreover, narrow redactions of the

8

employees’ personally-identifying information would not sufficiently protect their privacy

9

interests because the documents include descriptions of issues that could still permit others to

10

readily ascertain their identities. The Court accordingly finds compelling reasons to seal these

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

confidential employment records and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 47-49 and 51-52

12

to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(d).
Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion as to any other material filed conditionally

13
14

under seal solely pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c) (“Reference to a

15

stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is

16

not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

17

III.

18

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

19

PART. By no later than April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and associated

20

exhibits shall be refiled in accordance with this Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. The

21

parties are reminded that all documents filed in support of a motion should be filed as attachments

22

to that motion, not filed separately.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/30/2022
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
5