Mosley v. Groupon Inc., et.al.

Filing 105

ORDER GRANTING 92 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/15/2016. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO SEAL

v.
9
10

GROUPON, INC., et al.,

[Re: ECF 92]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiffs William Mosley and Frances Mosley moved to file under seal Exhibits 4–6 to

14

their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF 92. Parties moving to seal documents must

15

comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Under Civ. L.R. 79-5(e), when a party

16

moves to seal documents designated as confidential by an opposing party, the latter party must file

17

a declaration in support of the request within four days of the filing of the motion. Groupon

18

designated as confidential the documents sought to be sealed, but Groupon filed no such

19

declaration. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. ECF 103. Defendants

20

subsequently filed a declaration in support of the motion, indicating that it seeks to have these

21

documents filed under seal because the information contained in these exhibits “contain sensitive

22

private customer information,” including the customers’ names, phone numbers, and e-mail

23

addresses. ECF 104. The Court now GRANTS the motion for the reasons discussed below.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

28

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

1

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

2

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

3

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ SAC and

4

documents submitted in support thereof are more than tangentially related to the merits.

5

Therefore, the “compelling reasons” standard applies.

6

In addition to satisfying the “compelling reasons” test, sealing motions filed in this district

7

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

8

moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

9

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or
protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

12

Plaintiffs move to seal Exhibits 4–6 of their SAC on the basis that Defendants designated

13

them as confidential. The exhibits are comprised of printouts of Groupon customer support

14

interactions with various third-party customers, and contain Groupon third-party customers’

15

private information, such as their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses. ECF 92.

16

Defendant submitted the declaration of their counsel, Kenneth K. Lee, who states that the exhibits

17

contain such confidential information. ECF 104. Accordingly, Defendants have established

18

compelling reasons for the requested sealing.

19

The motion to seal Exhibits 4–6 in their entirety is GRANTED.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: August 15, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2