Yan Mei Zheng-Lawson et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al

Filing 98

ORDER RE 84 , 87 , 89 , 92 , 95 PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/29/2019. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

YAN MEI ZHENG-LAWSON, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10
11

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et
al.,

Case No. 17-cv-06591-BLF
ORDER RE PENDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 84, 87, 89, 92, 95]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
This order addresses five administrative motions to seal: (1) Plaintiffs’ Administrative

13
14

Motion to File under Seal Documents in Support of Class Certification (ECF 84); (2) Plaintiffs’

15

Administrative Motion to File under Seal Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

16

Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF 87); (3) Defendants’ Administrative

17

Motion for Order Sealing Records Lodged Conditionally Under Seal in Connection with

18

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF 89); (4) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File

19

under Seal Documents in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF

20

92); and (5) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File under Seal Documents in Support of

21

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF 95).
The Court’s rulings are set forth as follows.

22
23
24

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“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, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the

28

merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for

1

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only

2

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at

3

1097.
Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

4
5

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part

6

must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

7

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

8

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

9

sealable.” Id.
Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing

12

adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

13

The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has

14

been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

15

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of

16

the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a

17

responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the

18

Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later

19

than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

20
21
22
23
24
25

II.

DISCUSSION
The parties’ motions fall into two categories, those relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification, and those relating to Defendants’ opposition to class certification.
A.

Sealing Motions Relating to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(ECF 84, 87, 89)

Plaintiffs have filed two sealing motions, ECF 84 and 87, requesting sealing or partial

26

sealing of documents filed in support of their motion for class certification, on the basis that the

27

documents contain information designated confidential by Defendants. Because Defendants are

28

the designating parties, they have the burden of establishing that sealing is appropriate.
2

1

Defendants have addressed that burden by filing their own sealing motion, ECF 89,

2

seeking to seal some, but not all, of the documents identified by Plaintiffs in their sealing motions.

3

Defendants argue that the good cause standard applies, and this Court has applied the good cause

4

standard to documents relating to class certification in the past. See Bohannon v. Facebook, Inc.,

5

No. 12-CV-01894-BLF, 2014 WL 5598222, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (applying good cause

6

standard to documents related to class certification motion). However, since the Ninth Circuit

7

clarified in Chrysler that the compelling reasons standard applies whenever the motion at issue is

8

“more than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

9

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), most district courts within the Ninth
Circuit have applied the compelling reasons test to documents relating to class certification. See,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

e.g., Wetzel v. CertainTeed Corp., No. C16-1160JLR, 2019 WL 1236859, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar.

12

18, 2019) (“[S]ince Chrysler, district courts that have addressed the issue have regularly found

13

that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal exhibits attached to motions for

14

class certification.”); McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-CV-00986-BAS-AGS, 2018

15

WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (“[C]ourts apply the compelling reasons standard to

16

a motion to seal a document filed in connection with a motion for class certification.”); In re

17

Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying compelling reasons standard

18

to documents relating to class certification); Weisberg v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-

19

784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (“Because the Motion for Class

20

Certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons

21

standard applies in determining whether to grant the Application to Seal.”). In the wake of

22

Chrysler, this Court likewise concludes that the compelling reasons standards applies to class

23

certification motions and documents related thereto.

24

Although Defendants’ motion is couched in terms of good cause, the reasons Defendants

25

put forward for sealing also satisfy the compelling reasons test. Moreover, Defendants’ requests

26

are narrowly tailored. While Defendants do seek sealing of certain documents in their entirety, for

27

the most part Defendants seek limited redactions of the documents in question to protect

28

confidential and proprietary information.
3

1

Defendants have submitted the declarations of W. Joshua Hoffmann, the Senior Manager

2

of Dealer Digital Solutions and Relationship Marketing at Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,

3

Inc., and John Ciarletta, the Senior Manager of Consumer Insights at Defendant Toyota Motor

4

North America, Inc. See Hoffmann Decl., ECF 89-1; Ciarletta Decl., ECF 89-2. Mr. Hoffmann

5

and Mr. Ciarletta explain that the documents and portions of documents as to which Defendants

6

seek sealing contain information regarding Defendants’ proprietary marketing strategies, training

7

materials, and competitor analyses. Hoffman Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. The documents also contain

8

information regarding Defendants’ internal business objectives, communications, procedures, and

9

confidential contractual agreements. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 5. Some documents include information
obtained pursuant to a contract with a third party company that Defendants hired to conduct

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

independent industry research. Ciarletta Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Finally, the documents include information

12

derived from exclusive customer in-home interviews and confidential surveys. Ciarletta Decl. ¶¶

13

6-9. The declarants represent that the information in question has been kept confidential, and

14

disclosure could cause substantial harm to Defendants’ competitive standing in the automotive

15

industry. Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; Ciarletta Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.

16

Based on Defendants’ showing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ sealing motion. The

17

Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ sealing motions as to those documents and portions of

18

documents Defendants have shown to be sealable, and it DENIES Plaintiffs’ sealing motions with

19

respect to those documents Defendants have not sought to seal. The Court’s ruling is summarized

20

in the following chart:

21
22

ECF No.

Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification

Denied. Document withdrawn by
Plaintiffs and superseded by
Corrected Memorandum

ECF 87-4

Corrected Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification

Granted as to lines: 1:17-22; 2:1724; 3:3; 3:10-15; 3:21; 4:10-12;
4:17-19; 5:1; 5:4; 5:6; 5:18-21;
6:1-3; 6:6; 9:21; 11:2-5; 17:11;
and 19:16.

24

26

Ruling

ECF 84-4

23

25

Document

27
28
4

1

ECF 84-8

Expert Report of Dave McLellan
Consulting in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification

ECF 84-6

Expert Report of Stefan Boedecker Denied. Designating parties,
in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
Defendants, have not sought
for Class Certification
sealing.

2
3
4
5
6

(see below)

7

Exhibits to the Declaration of
Robert S. Green in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification

(see below)

ECF 85-7

Exhibit 4, Excerpts of the W.
Joshua Hoffmann deposition
transcript

ECF 85-9

Exhibit 5, Excerpts of the A. Hack Granted as to lines: 23:23; 24:16;
deposition transcript
24:25-25:1; 25:7-8; 25:12-15;
30:14-31:3; 49:14;
49:14; 54:4; 54:13- 56:10; 57:7;
57:17-19; 72:18-73:12; 84:8-9;
96:22-23; 98:5-8; 104:6-10;
113:23-114:4; 114:22; 115:17-19.

17

ECF 85-15

Exhibit 10, Responses to
Interrogatories

Granted as to Interrogatory Nos. 9
and 13; Exhibits A and B.

18

ECF 85-17

Exhibit 11

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-19

Exhibit 12

Granted as to pages 0000492400004928.

ECF 85-21

Exhibit 13

Granted as to entire document.

ECF 85-24

Exhibit 15

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-26

Exhibit 16

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-31

Exhibit 20

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

8
9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

12
13
14
15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Granted as to lines: 29:8-13;
30:9; 39:23-25; 49:15-21; 54:310; 55:9-10; 55:17-6:14; 58:14-23;
59:1; 59:13-22; 60:2-9; 60:2261:3; 61:8-9; 61:11-23; 62:5-6;
62:11-25;
64:18-65:3; 66:4-5; 66:17

ECF 85-33

Exhibit 21

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-35

Exhibit 22

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-37

Exhibit 23

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-39

Exhibit 24

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-41

Exhibit 25

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-43

Exhibit 26

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-45

Exhibit 27

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-47

Exhibit 28

Granted as to entire document.

ECF 85-49

Exhibit 29

Granted as to pages 0000404400004064.

ECF 85-51

Exhibit 30

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

19

ECF 85-53

Exhibit 31

Granted as to entire document.

20

ECF 85-55

Exhibit 32

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

ECF 85-57

Exhibit 33

Granted as to entire document.

ECF 85-59

Exhibit 34

Denied. Designating parties,
Defendants, have not sought
sealing.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2

B.

Sealing Motions Relating to Defendants’ Opposition to Class Certification
(ECF 92, 95)

3

Defendants filed their original opposition to class certification on July 12, 2019, in

4

conjunction with an administrative motion to seal (ECF 92) and a separate motion to exclude the

5

reports of Plaintiffs’ experts. On July 15, 2019, the Court struck Defendants’ motion to exclude

6

and granted Defendants leave to file an amended opposition containing Defendants’ objections to

7

Plaintiffs’ expert evidence. See Order Striking, ECF 93. Defendants timely filed an amended

8

opposition on July 22, 2019, along with a corresponding administration motion to seal (ECF 95).

9

Because it appears that the amended opposition completely replaces and supersedes the original
opposition, the sealing motion corresponding to the original opposition (ECF 92) is

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

TERMINATED AS MOOT.

12

With respect to the sealing motion corresponding to the amended opposition (ECF 95),

13

Defendants are the designating parties with respect to all documents except the depositions of

14

Plaintiff Joanne Ferrara and her husband Robert Ferrara. Thus, Defendants bear the burden of

15

establishing that all documents except the Ferrara depositions are sealable, and Plaintiffs bear the

16

burden of establishing that the Ferrara depositions are sealable.

17

Defendants have satisfied their burden by presenting compelling reasons for sealing, even

18

though Defendants’ motion is couched in terms of good cause. Defendants’ requests are narrowly

19

tailored. While Defendants do seek sealing of certain documents in their entirety, for the most part

20

Defendants seek only redaction of confidential matter. Defendants have submitted the

21

declarations of Jeffrey B. Margulies, Defendants’ counsel; Jon Ciarletta, the Senior Manager of

22

Consumer Insights at Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc.; and Ashley Hack, the

23

Communications Senior Planner of Vehicle Marketing and Communications for Toyota Motor

24

Sales, U.S.A. See Margulies Decl., ECF 95-2; Ciarletta Decl., ECF 95-3; and Hack Decl., ECF

25

95-4. Those declarants explain that the materials as to which Defendants seek sealing include

26

confidential incentive and sales data, as well as confidential marketing materials and marketing

27

strategies. See Margulies Decl. ¶ 6; Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-4. The materials also include market

28

research that required significant time and resources to prepare, both on the part of Defendants and
7

1

a third party Defendants hired to conduct such research. See Hack Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Ciarletta Decl. ¶¶

2

3-7. The declarants represent that disclosure of the information could cause substantial harm to

3

Defendants’ competitive standing in the automotive industry. Additionally, the materials contain

4

confidential contracts, the disclosure of which could implicate the privacy rights of the contracting

5

parties. See Margulies Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. Accordingly, Defendants’ sealing motion corresponding to

6

their amended opposition to class certification (ECF 95) is GRANTED as to the material for

7

which Defendants are the designating parties.

8
9

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that the Ferrara depositions are sealable.
Plaintiffs have not filed declarations to meet this burden as required under Civil Local Rule
79-5(e)(1), and the deadline to do so expired on July 26, 2019. However, Defendants have not

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

filed a proof of service showing that Plaintiffs were served with the sealing motion, and in

12

particular with unredacted copies of the excerpts of the Ferrara depositions as to which sealing is

13

requested. Such proof of service is required under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Accordingly, although

14

it appears from the docket that Plaintiffs received notification of the sealing motion itself from the

15

ECF system, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs received sufficient information for them to evaluate

16

whether the excerpts of the Ferrara depositions contain sealable material. Accordingly,

17

Defendants’ sealing motion corresponding to their amended opposition to class certification (ECF

18

95) is DEFERRED as to the Ferrara depositions. Defendants SHALL, on or before August 1,

19

2019, file a proof of service showing that they served a copy of the sealing motion on Plaintiffs,

20

including the portions of the Ferrara depositions as to which Defendants seek sealing on the basis

21

that Plaintiffs are the designating parties. Plaintiffs shall have until August 5, 2019 to file the

22

required declarations establishing that the Ferrara depositions are sealable.

23
24

The Court’s ruling with respect to Defendants’ sealing motion corresponding to their
amended opposition to class certification (ECF 95) is summarized in the following chart:

25
26
27
28
8

1
2

ECF No.

Defs.’ Amended Mem. of Points Granted as to Lines:
and Authorities Opp’n to Mot.
3:23; 3:27; 4:2-3; 4:6; 4:10;
for Class Certification
4:12-15; 4:20; 4:28; 5:8; 5:1116; 6:2-5; 6:8:10; 6:21-26;
6:28-7:9; 7:11-15; 7:18; 9:28;
10:1; 10:7-8; 10:19-21; 13:7-8;
14:5; 14:8

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B. Margulies in Granted as to highlighted
Support of Opp’n to Mot. For
excerpts of ¶ 9.
Class Certification

ECF 95-2

Decl. of Jeffrey B. Margulies in Granted as to ¶ 2 and
Support of Defendants’ Motion highlighted excerpt of ¶ 3.
to Seal

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. for Class
Certification, Ex. 1

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts of the Ashley Hack
deposition transcript: 14:4;
14:11; 14:16; 14:18; 14:23-24;
15:2; 15:7; 15:9; 15:11-12;
15:15; 15:19; 15:24; 24:16;
24:25; 55:11; 55:14-18; 56:113; 56:16-18; 67:14; 67:17;
75:22; 75:24; 98:5-6; 98:8;
113:23; 114:12; and 114:22.

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. for Class
Certification, Ex. 2

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts of the W. Joshua
Hoffmann deposition
transcript: 19:4-7; 19:18-20;
19:25; 55:9-10; 55:17-25 and
70:19.

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. For Class
Certification, Exhibit 8

Granted as to entire document.

4
5
6

8
9

Ruling

ECF 95-7

3

7

Document

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
9

1

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. For Class
Certification, Exhibit 11

Deferred. Defendants have not
filed a proof of service
showing that designating
parties, Plaintiffs, were served
with the sealing motion and
relevant portions of the
deposition of Joanne Ferrara.

ECF 95-17

Decl. of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. For Class
Certification, Exhibit 14

Deferred. Defendants have not
filed a proof of service
showing that designating
parties, Plaintiffs, were served
with the sealing motion and
relevant portions of the
deposition of Robert Ferrara.

ECF 95-17

Declaration of Jeffrey B.
Margulies in Support of
Opp’n to Mot. For Class
Certification, Exhibit 20

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts at page 1.

ECF 95-21

Expert Report of Keith Ugone

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts at pages 4, 18-25, 2728, 33 and 34.

ECF 95-21

Expert Report of Keith Ugone,
Ex. 3

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts at pages 3-4.

ECF 95-21

Expert Report of Keith Ugone,
Ex. 5

Granted as to entire document.

ECF 95-21

Expert Report of Keith Ugone,
Ex. 6

Granted as to entire document.

ECF 95-13

Decl. of Ashley Hack in
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
Class Certification

Granted as to highlighted ¶¶

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

ECF 95-15

Decl. of W. Joshua Hoffmann in Granted as to highlighted
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
paragraphs 4, 7-9.
Class Certification

ECF 95-15

Decl. of W. Joshua Hoffmann in Granted as to entire document.
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
Class Certification, Ex. 1

ECF 95-15

Decl. of W. Joshua Hoffmann in Granted as to highlighted
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
portions at pages 8479-8490.
Class Certification, Ex. 3

23
24
25
26
27

3-4, 9-10, and 14.

28
10

1

ECF 95-9

Decl. of Jon Ciarletta in Support Granted as to highlighted
of Opp’n to Mot. for Class
excerpts of ¶¶ 3, 5-8 and 10.
Certification

ECF 95-9

Decl. of Jon Ciarletta in Support Granted as to entire document.
of Opp’n to Mot. for Class
Certification, Ex. 1

ECF 95-9

Decl. of Jon Ciarletta in Support Granted as to entire document.
of Opp’n to Mot. for Class
Certification, Ex. 2

ECF 95-19

Decl. of Audrey Mito in
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
Class Certification

Granted as to highlighted
excerpts of ¶¶ 4-7.

ECF 95-11

Decl. of Emily Gaitan in
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
Class Certification
Decl. of Emily Gaitan in
Support of Opp’n to Mot. for
Class Certification, Ex. 1

Granted as to highlighted excerpts
of ¶¶ 4-7.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF 95-11

13

Granted as to entire document.

14
15
16

III.

ORDER
(1)

With respect to the sealing motions relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for class

17

certification, Plaintiffs’ motions filed at ECF 84 and 87 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

18

IN PART, and Defendants’ motion filed at ECF 89 is GRANTED, as set forth herein. Plaintiffs

19

shall file any documents as to which sealing has been denied on the public docket no earlier than 4

20

days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

21
22
23

(2)

With respect to the sealing motion relating to Defendants’ original opposition to

class certification, Defendants’ sealing motion filed at ECF 92 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
(3)

With respect to the sealing motion relating to Defendants’ amended opposition to

24

class certification, Defendants’ sealing motion filed at ECF 95 is GRANTED IN PART and

25

DEFERRED IN PART, as set forth herein. The motion is GRANTED as to all material as to

26

which Defendants are the designating parties. The motion is DEFERRED as to the Ferrara

27

depositions, as to which Plaintiffs are the designating parties. Defendants SHALL, on or before

28

August 1, 2019, file a proof of service showing that they served Plaintiffs with the sealing motion
11

1

and the relevant excerpts of the Ferrara depositions. Plaintiffs shall have until August 5, 2019 to

2

file the required declaration establishing that the excerpts of the Ferrara depositions are sealable.

3
4
5
6

Dated: July 29, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

7
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
27
28
12