Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC et al

Filing 117

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 113 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SANDRA LEE JACOBSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTION

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 113
PERSOLVE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is a renewed administrative motion to seal brought by Defendant

19

Persolve, LLC. ECF No. 113. The Court previously denied motions to seal filed by Plaintiff

20

Sandra Jacobson, ECF No. 98, and by Defendants Persolve, LLC and Stride Card, LLC, ECF No.

21

100, without prejudice. ECF No. 110. Persolve’s renewed motion to seal covers documents filed

22

in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

23

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

24

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

25

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

26

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

27

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

28

1
Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

1

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

2

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

3

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447

4

F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when

5

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

6

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

7

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the

8

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

9

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

include “motions for summary judgment.” Id.
Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

12

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

13

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,”

14

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal

15

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”

16

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

17

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

18

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad

19

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not

20

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

21

In general, motions for class certification are considered nondispositive. See In re High-

22

Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30,

23

2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the Court finds

24

that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”).

25

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard to Defendants’ requests.

26
27
28

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court
documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research,
2
Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

1

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has

2

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a]

3

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

4

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

5

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

6

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

7

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

8

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing

9

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

10

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

12

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

13

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

14

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

15

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

16

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

17

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each

18

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

19

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document

20

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing

21

of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

22

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

23

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

24

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to Persolve’s request to seal

25

documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. With this standard in

26

mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

27
28

3
Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION

4

Motion Standard
Document
to Seal
113
Good
Exhibit A, PER 00046
Cause
113
Good
Exhibit B, PL2 Statement
Cause
of Operations

5

113

Good
Cause

Exhibit C, PL2 balance
sheet

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

113

Good
Cause

Exhibit D, Summary of
portfolios

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

1
2
3

6
7

Ruling
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:July 1, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

4
Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SEALING MOTION