Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 333

ORDER GRANTING 327 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/14/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.
GOOGLE LLC,

Re: ECF 327

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF

12
13

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

14

withdraw as attorney of record for certain Opt-In Plaintiffs (ECF 328) and its supporting

15

declaration (ECF 328-1). See ECF 327. For the reasons that follow, the motion to seal is

16

GRANTED.

17

I. LEGAL STANDARD

18

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

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

20

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

21

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

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

24

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

25

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

27

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

28

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

1

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

2

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

3

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

4

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

5

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

6

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

7

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

8

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard
requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

13

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

14

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

15

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

16

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

17

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

18

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

19

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

20

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

21

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

22

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

23

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

24

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

25

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

26

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

27

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

28

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
2

1

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

2

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

3

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

6

II. DISCUSSION

7

The Court has reviewed the motion to seal and the declaration submitted in support

8

thereof. See ECF 327; Declaration of Daniel Low, ECF 327-1. Plaintiffs move here to seal the

9

names of certain Opt-In Plaintiffs for whom counsel would like to withdraw as attorney of record,

10

see ECF 328; ECF 328-1.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A motion to withdraw as counsel is a non-dispositive filing to which the “good cause”

12

standard applies. The Court finds that good cause exists to seal the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ personal

13

information. The Court has previously granted administrative motions to seal documents in this

14

case containing the personal information of Google’s applicants, including their names. See ECF

15

197, 256, 298, 323, 325. As with those motions, sealing this information is justified to maintain

16

the confidentiality of the Plaintiffs’ personal information and to prevent their exposure to harm or

17

identity theft. Moreover, the request is narrowly tailored to seal only those portions of the motion

18

and declaration disclosing the names of Opt-In Plaintiffs. As such, the Court finds good cause to

19

seal portions of the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs (ECF

20

328) and the supporting declaration (ECF 328-1), and hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.

21

Because redacted versions of the motion and supporting declaration have been filed in the

22

public record, and unredacted versions have been filed under seal, no further action is necessary.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: August 14, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
3