William Aviles Hardwood Floors v. JTEKT Corporation et al

Filing 134

ORDER re 91 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Certain Portions of Amended Complaint Under Seal. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration and, if applicable, brief in support of sealing that addresses the deficiencies identified in this order. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 8/13/2014. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

WILLIAM AVILES HARDWOOD
FLOORS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
JTEKT CORPORATION, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00114-BLF
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
CERTAIN PORTIONS OF AMENDED
COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 91, 99, 112]

Defendants.

12
13

On July 16, 2014, this Court denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to

14

file portions of its Amended Class Action and Representative Action Complaint (“FACC”) under

15

seal because Plaintiff had not articulated compelling reasons in support of sealing. (See Order,

16

ECF 99; Admin. Mot., ECF 91) On July 23, 2014, in compliance with the Court’s order, Plaintiff

17

filed a revised declaration and supplemental brief in support of sealing. (Revised Romanenko

18

Decl., ECF 112; Suppl. Brief., ECF 112-1)

19

On review of the supplemental filing, Plaintiff’s reasons for sealing again fall short of

20

compelling. Plaintiff asserts that paragraphs 92 and 94-99 contain information “relevant to an

21

ongoing government investigation,” information obtained from a confidential informant

22

concerning “specific conspiratorial conduct that has not been made public,” and names of certain

23

employees whose connections to the conspiracy have not been publicly revealed. (Revised

24

Romanenko Decl. ¶¶ 3-5) Plaintiff believes that revealing this information to the public “may

25

jeopardize the investigation.” (Id. ¶ 6)

26

The Court notes that “[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any

27

further elaboration . . . does not satisfy the [compelling reasons] burden.” Kamakana v. City &

28

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff does not disclose the general

1

subject matter of the “ongoing investigation,” what government agency is conducting the

2

investigation, how the information sought to be sealed is “relevant” to that investigation, and why

3

disclosure would jeopardize the investigation. Furthermore, it is not at all clear from Plaintiff’s

4

filings who designated the information as highly confidential, how Plaintiff obtained the

5

information, and what interest Plaintiff has in maintaining the confidentiality of the information

6

sought to be sealed in Paragraphs 92 and 94-99 of the FACC.1 Each of the cases that Plaintiff

7

cites in support of sealing information relating to ongoing government investigations is inapposite

8

to this case because they involved either the government advocating for sealing, see United States

9

v. Park, 619 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) and United States v. Northrop Corp., 746 F. Supp.
1002 (C.D. Cal. 1990), or the owner of the confidential information submitting a specific

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

declaration in support of sealing, (see Supp. Br. Exhs. A-B), or both, (see id.). To the extent

12

Plaintiff is seeking to seal information designated confidential by others, the Civil Local Rules

13

have appropriate provisions for shifting the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing

14

to the designating party. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
Moreover, the proposed redactions are not narrowly tailored to Plaintiff’s proffered reasons

15
16

for sealing. Paragraphs 92, 94-95 and 99 appear too generic to reveal specific details about an

17

ongoing government investigation. Compare Park, 619 F. Supp. 2d at 94 (sealed information was

18

specific concerning defendant’s assistance to the government in ongoing investigation, and sealing

19

was supported by declaration of person with personal knowledge of the investigation). While

20

Paragraphs 96-98 appear to contain allegations of specific conduct, Plaintiff has not explained why

21

the redaction of names and dates is not sufficient to protect the confidential nature of the

22

information or of Plaintiff’s informant. Overall, without a more robust explanation, the proposed

23

redactions do not appear narrowly tailored to “protect just the names of particular Defendants’

24

employees and descriptions of specific conspiratorial conduct that is relevant to a government

25
26
27
28

1

For example, Plaintiff’s vague references to an ongoing government investigation as well as a
confidential informant lead this Court to conflicting inferences about the source of the
information: either the information was obtained from the government or it was obtained through
Plaintiff’s independent investigation through a confidential informant. If the latter, it is not clear
how disclosing this information would jeopardize an ongoing government investigation.
2

1
2

investigation and not public.” (Suppl. Br. 2)
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s supplemental submissions insufficient

3

to support its request to seal portions of its FACC. The Court will afford Plaintiff another

4

opportunity to supplement its sealing request in order to address the deficiencies identified in this

5

order. Within seven (7) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental

6

declaration and, if applicable, brief in support of sealing Paragraphs 92 and 94-99 of the FACC.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 13, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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