Dmuchowsky v. Sky Chefs, Inc.

Filing 62

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 59 DENYING 61 MOTION TO SEAL OR ALTERNATIVELY, REDACT THE HEARING TRANSCRIPT. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ERIC DMUCHOWSKY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

SKY CHEFS, INC.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
OR ALTERNATIVELY, REDACT THE
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
Re: Dkt. No. 61

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-01559-HSG

12
Pending before the Court is Defendant Sky Chefs, Inc. (“Sky Chefs”) Motion to Seal or

13
14

Alternatively, Redact the Hearing Transcript of the December 13, 2018 hearing on the cross-

15

motions filed under Rule 52. Dkt. No. 61 (“Mot.”). Sky Chefs contends that portions of the

16

transcript “relate to claims under other benefit plans that could harm innocent third parties and

17

relate to confidential settlement discussions between the parties, both of which should not be

18

disclosed publicly.” Id. at 2. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

20

For motions to seal, courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v.

21

Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “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 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

24

Cir. 2006)). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption

25

in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation marks and

26

citation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate

27

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of

28

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

1

judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In

2

general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify

3

sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper

4

purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate

5

libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

The Court must:

7

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks
to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must
base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
II.

DISCUSSION
Sky Chefs presents nothing in the pending motion to overcome the strong presumption in

13

favor of public access to court records. The portions of the transcript Sky Chefs seeks to redact

14

fall in one of two categories: (1) discussions about the merits of the then-pending motions, or (2)

15

discussions about settlement options. See Mot. at 1–2 (citing relevant transcript excerpts).

16

As to discussions related to the motions’ merits, Sky Chefs identifies nothing in the

17

transcript not otherwise mentioned in the underlying briefs. Those briefs are not under seal,

18

meaning everything discussed at the hearing regarding the motions is “publicly available in a prior

19

filing” and thus there is no compelling reason to redact the portions of the transcript on the

20

subject. See Synchronoss Techs, Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-cv-00119-HSG, 2018 WL 6002319,

21

at *2 (Nov. 15, 2018). There is even less reason for Sky Chefs to seek redaction of statements by

22

the Court at the hearing, as though the Court’s observations about the merits of motions before it

23

somehow “harm innocent parties.” See Mot. at 2; see also Dkt. No. 59 at 3:2–7 (“What was said

24

before was, ‘We don’t think you’re entitled to the documents because you’re a former employee.’

25

That’s just wrong as a matter of law. There is nothing in the record that establishes anybody doing

26

any legal research or otherwise having a good-faith basis for that wrong stonewalling.”).

27
28

Regarding the discussions about settlement options, nothing said revealed anything
confidential: the Court asked the parties if they would like time to discuss settlement options
2

1

given the Court’s stated inclinations; the parties said they would like time to speak with their

2

clients; and the Court said it would hold the motion in abeyance. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 59 at 13:7–8

3

(“Now that you understand that I’m going to impose penalties, can the parties work out a

4

number?”). Nothing about those statements constituted “confidential settlement discussions

5

between the parties” as Sky Chefs now claims. See Mot. at 2.

6

III.

7

CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Sky Chefs’s motion. For any future motions to seal or redact court

8

records, the Court expects the parties will use their best objective judgment to file motions that are

9

narrowly tailored and that satisfy the high threshold set by controlling Ninth Circuit precedent.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/8/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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