Miller v. RP On-Site, LLC et al

Filing 69

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 68 Defendant's Renewed Administrative Motion to Seal. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2021)

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
BRIAN MILLER,

12

Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL

v.

14

RP ON-SITE, LLC,

15

Re: Dkt. No. 68

Defendant.

16
17

Before the Court is Defendant’s renewed administrative motion to seal portions of the

18
19

parties’ class certification briefing. ECF No. 68. Specifically, Defendant moves to file under seal

20

parts of its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, ECF No. 55, and parts of

21

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, ECF No. 53. For the following reasons, the Court

22

GRANTS Defendant’s renewed motion.

23

I.

24

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 & Cty. Of

26

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

27

589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, a “strong presumption in

28

1
Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

2

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In the Ninth Circuit, documents that are more than “tangentially

3

related . . . to the underlying cause of action” are not sealable unless the Court agrees that

4

“compelling reasons” exist to overcome the presumption of access. See id. at 1179.

5

Here, the documents that the parties seek to seal are related to a motion for class
certification. “A class certification motion ‘generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in

7

the factual and legal issues comprising plaintiff's cause of action,’ which require a district court to

8

engage in a ‘rigorous analysis’ that ‘entail[s] some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's

9

underlying claims.’” McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal.

10

July 31, 2018) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351, 352 (2011)). Indeed,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

most district courts to consider the question have found that motions for class certification are

12

“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” and therefore apply the

13

“compelling reasons” standard. Philips v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 WL 7374214, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

14

Dec. 20, 2016) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to the

15

parties' sealing motions. See, e.g., Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-CV-04955-LHK, 2018 WL

16

7814785, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) (applying compelling reasons standard).

17

Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such

18

‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

19

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

20

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of

21

records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will

22

not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

23

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

24

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

25

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

26

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

27

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

28

2
Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), in turn, requires the submitting party to attach a “declaration

2

establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable,” a

3

“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” and a proposed order

4

that “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as

5

an “unredacted version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method,

6

the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

7

II.

DISCUSSION
On November 25, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s first sealing motion (ECF No. 55)

9

without prejudice. ECF No. 66. The Court held that the motion “violate[d] Civil Local Rule 79-5

10

and appl[ied] the wrong legal standard for sealing.” Id. at. 3. Accordingly, the Court ordered the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

parties to file a renewed sealing motion by December 11, 2020 “that complies with Civil Local

12

Rule 79-6 and applies the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 4. Even so, the Court approvingly

13

found that “Defendant’s sealing motion ma[de] an effort to narrowly tailor sealing requests.” Id. at

14

3.
On December 11, 2020, Defendant filed the instant renewed administrative motion to seal

15
16

portions of the parties’ class certification briefing.1 ECF No. 68 (“renewed motion” or “Mot.”).

17

The renewed motion cures the defects identified in the Court’s November 25, 2020 Order. ECF

18

No. 66 at 3–4 (identifying defects). Specifically, the renewed motion: (1) applies the compelling

19

reasons standard; (2) attaches a declaration establishing that the documents sought to be filed

20

under seal are sealable; (3) attaches a proposed order that lists sealable material in table format;

21

and (4) attaches unredacted versions of documents that highlight what Defendant seeks to seal. See

22

Mot. at 3–4; ECF No. 68-1 (declaration); ECF No. 68-2 (proposed order); ECF No. 68-7 to 68-10

23

(highlighted documents).
Defendant’s declarant, Senior Director of Product Management Manjit Sohal, avers that

24
25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiff has failed to file a renewed sealing motion by the December 11, 2020 deadline. Thus,
Plaintiff has waived any request he may have to seal the class certification briefing.
3
Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

Defendant seeks to seal proprietary information that “provide[s] [Defendant] with a competitive

2

advantage in the marketplace over its competitors.” Sohal Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 68-1. Senior

3

Director Sohal further avers that “[i]f that proprietary information were released, [Defendant]

4

could face a disadvantage against its competitors. Releasing the information would also provide

5

that information to competitors without them having to bear the same costs that [Defendant] has

6

incurred.” Id. ¶ 7.

7

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “business information that might harm a litigant’s

8

competitive standing [if disclosed]” meets the compelling reasons standard for sealing. In re Elec.

9

Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598) (granting writ of
mandamus and ordering district court to seal documents); see also, e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2017 WL 9614789, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017)

12

(sealing information on same grounds). Here too, Defendant seeks to seal business information

13

that might harm Defendant’s competitive standing if disclosed. Thus, as set forth in the table

14

below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s renewed motion.

15
16
17

Motion
to Seal

22
23
24

Portions

Compelling Plaintiff's Memorandum of
3:14-4:21; 7:9-12; 7:17-18; 7:27-8:5;
Reason
Points and Authorities in
11:19-20.
Support of Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification (ECF
No. 53-4)

Trade
Secrets

Compelling Declaration of James M.
Reason
Treglio, Esq., in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and
Appointment of Class
Counsel (“Treglio
Declaration”; ECF No. 53-2)

19

21

Document

Trade
Secrets

18

20

Standard

25
26
27
28

Exhibit B (23:2-24:5; 25:10-16; 28:630:5; 30:22-31:8; 33:12-21; 35:4-18;
36:1-10; 42:1-43:18; 43:23-48:22;
50:9-14; 51:21-52:9; 53:3-54:25; 59:821; 62:3-11; 65:2 - 68:1; 69:2-4;
72:17-23; 73:7-75:20; 76:7-20; 77:478:23; 83:21-89:25; 92:11-93:18; 94:299:9; 102:19-103:1; 103:11-104:21;
105:1-106:3; 107:23-108:18; 109:1-19;
111:4-113:2; 113:18-119:8);
Exhibit 6;
Exhibit 7; and
Exhibit 11.

4
Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

Trade
Secrets

Compelling Declaration of Manjit Sohal ¶ 9-11; ¶ 13-15; ¶ 17-18; ¶ 20-23; ¶ 31;
Reason
in Support of RP On-Site,
¶ 36-37.
LLC Memorandum in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class
Certification (ECF No. 55-7)

Trade
Secrets

Compelling RP On-Site, LLC
Reason
Memorandum in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification (ECF No.
55-6)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

2:23-25; 3:1-7; 3:9-20; 3:24-4:20;
p. 4, Fn. 2; 5:18-19; 6:2-8; 13:26-14:2;
14:3-5; 19:6-8; 19:16-18; 19:19-20;
21:6-10;
24:21-23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: January 8, 2021
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
Case No. 19-CV-02114-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL