Des Roches et al v. California Physicians' Service et al

Filing 120

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying without Prejudice 85 101 104 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017)

Download PDF
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 CHARLES DES ROCHES, et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, et al., Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 85, 101, 104 Defendants. 17 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)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 22 favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 24 related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety & Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons 26 supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 27 policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the 1 28 Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 2 improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 3 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 4 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 5 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 6 court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 9 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 10 records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 13 merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 15 The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 16 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 17 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 18 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 19 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 21 documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 22 development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 23 adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 24 trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 25 used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 26 competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 27 (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 28 2 Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 production of goods . . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 2 business . . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that 3 sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 4 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Further, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that 7 establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 8 entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly tailored 9 to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. Civil 10 Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 5 narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each document 12 or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the document” 13 that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have 14 been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. 15 Since the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, 809 F.3d 16 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), most district courts to consider the question have found that a motion 17 for class certification is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” and 18 therefore merits application of the “compelling reasons” standard. See Philips v. Ford, 2016 WL 19 7374214 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (collecting cases); see also Cohen v. Trump, 2016 WL 20 3036302 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (discussing other cases applying compelling reason standard to 21 class certification motion after Center for Auto Safety and applying compelling reason standard). 22 In the instant case, the issues on class certification “entail some overlap with the merits of the 23 plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). The Court 24 finds that the instant motion for class certification is “more than tangentially related to the 25 underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099, and thus the “compelling 26 reasons” standard applies. 27 28 On April 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal Plaintiff’s 3 Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 motion for class certification and supporting exhibits. ECF No. 85. On May 1, 2017, Defendant 2 filed an administrative motion to file under seal Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for 3 class certification and supporting exhibits. ECF No. 101. On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed an 4 administrative motion to file under seal Plaintiff’s reply in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class 5 certification and supporting exhibits. ECF No. 104. 6 The Court finds the parties’ motions overbroad, as large portions of the parties’ motions are redacted and seek to redact non-confidential information. For example, in Plaintiffs’ motion 8 for summary judgment, the entire section entitled “Defendants Followed a Uniform Process in 9 Making Clinical Decisions about Class Members’ Coverage” is redacted. See ECF No. 85-1, at 9– 10 11. This section does not contain any private health, medical, or identification information, and the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 parties have made no effort to explain why this section is confidential. 12 Moreover, the parties have asked the Court to seal information that the parties have 13 designated “Confidential” under their stipulated protective order without any further analysis 14 regarding why these documents contain sealable information. See, e.g., ECF No. 85-1, at 9–11. 15 Under the Court’s Civil Local Rules, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 16 party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, 17 or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Additionally, the parties have applied 18 only the “good cause” standard to its requests to seal, rather than the “compelling reasons” 19 standard that the Court finds appropriate for the instant motion. ECF No. 85, at 2; ECF No. 101, at 20 4; ECF No. 104, at 2. 21 Accordingly, the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal are DENIED 22 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties shall file any renewed motions to seal within seven days of 23 this Order. 24 To facilitate compliance with the sealing rules and standards discussed above, the Court 25 hereby establishes the following procedures for filing administrative motions to file under seal in 26 this case: 27 28 The parties shall file all administrative motions to file under seal as joint motions. Prior to 4 Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 filing any such joint motions, lead counsel for both parties must meet and confer to decide what 2 information the parties will request to file under seal. The parties must file declarations from lead 3 counsel that confirm compliance with this order with each motion to file under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 8 Dated: June 1, 2017 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 9 10 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 5 Case No. 16-CV-02848-LHK ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?