San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., et al

Filing 130

ORDER Re Administrative Motions to File Under Seal 92 99 104 111 117 119 121 123 124 127 128 Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/20/2019. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 99, 104, 111, 117, 118,
119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128

The parties have filed numerous administrative motions to file under seal in connection

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The

12

order addresses these motions.

13

U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records

14

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac.

15

Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

16

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong

17

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019

18

WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

19

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are
“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show
“compelling reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that outweigh the presumption in favor of
disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To make this showing, the moving party must provide
“specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17,
2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets,
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1

1

marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information,

2

customer information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s

3

competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008);

4

Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28,

5

2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

6

However, courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions swallow the strong

7

presumption in favor of disclosure. “There fact that the production of records may lead to a

8

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

9

compel the court to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data,
2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not
sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 795(d)(1)(A).
It is well established among District Courts in this Circuit that motions for class
certification are more than tangentially related to the underlying merits of a case and are therefore
subject to the compelling reasons standard to file under seal. See, e.g., Waldrup v. Countrywide
Fin. Corp., 2018 WL 4586188, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at
*3; Cohen v. Trump, 2016 WL 3036302, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). Motions for summary
judgment are also more than tangentially related to the merits of a lawsuit. The court will apply
the compelling reasons standard to all of the instant motions to seal.
A. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

23
24
25
26

Certification. Dkt. Nos. 119, 121, 127.
Document

Portions Requested Sealed

The Court’s Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification

4:19-21; 5:1-12; 5:15-17; 5:2324; 5:26-27; 6:1-3; 10:25-11:2;
17:23-24; 14:15-18.

Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns

27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
2

Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

1
2
3

Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of
Michael Jaurigue

Its entirety.

Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of
Michael Jaurigue

Its entirety.

Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.
Moreover, the request is
not narrowly tailored.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

B. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Defendant’s Opposition to Class

14

Certification. Dkt. Nos. 117, 118.

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

Document

Portions Requested Sealed

Defendants The Häagen-Dazs
Shoppe Company, Inc., Nestlé
Dreyer’s Ice Cream Company,
and Nestlé USA, Inc.’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification

Lines 1:17-20, 1:22-24, 4:12-15, Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
and 4:16-18.
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

Declaration of Jennifer McLean
in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification

Lines 3:21-28, 4:2-5, 4:7-9, and
4:12-20.

Exhibit A to the Declaration of
In its entirety.
Jennifer McLean in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification
Exhibit B to the Declaration of
In its entirety.
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
3

The Court’s Ruling

Granted as to ¶ 15;
otherwise denied. The
court finds Defendant has
not met the compelling
reasons standard.
Granted.

Denied. The court finds

1
2
3
4
5

Jennifer McLean in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification
Declaration of Matthew Bishop
in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification

Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard
Lines 3:21-24, 3:26-4:1, and
4:7-15.

Granted as to ¶ 11,
otherwise denied. The
court finds Defendant has
not met the compelling
reasons standard. In
addition, the material
largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

In its entirety.

Granted.

In its entirety.

Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard

In its entirety.

Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Exhibit A to the Declaration of
Matthew Bishop in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification
Exhibit B to the Declaration of
Matthew Bishop in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification
Exhibit C to the Declaration of
Matthew Bishop in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification

18
19
20

C. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Class

21
22
23

Document

Certification. Dkr. Nos. 123, 124, 128
Portions Requested Sealed

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
Her Motion for Class
Certification

7:11-13; 14:4-8.

24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
4

The Court’s Ruling
Denied. The court finds
Defendant has not met the
compelling reasons
standard. In addition, the
material largely concerns
Defendant’s
communications to the
public and is therefore not
subject to sealing.

1
2
3

D. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 92.
This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the

4

court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied

5

without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to

6

file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any

7

material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.

8
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

E. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary
Judgment. Dkt. Nos. 99, 104
These motions do not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the
court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motions are
denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, the parties may re-file one joint motion
to file under seal that is supported by a declaration from the designating party (or parties). In the
renewed joint motion to file under seal, the parties shall not seek to seal any material as to which
the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.
F. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Reply Separate
Statement and Exhibits Dkt. No. 111.
This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the
court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied
without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to
file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any
material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
5