EBay Inc v. Boch et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING 28 DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ARBITRATION AWARD; DENYING 29 STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/21/2022. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2022)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

EBAY INC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 19-cv-04422-BLF

v.
SONJA BOCH, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL PORTIONS OF ARBITRATION
AWARD
[Re: ECF No. 28]

12
13

Before the Court is Defendants Sonja Boch, Amanda Sullivan Hedger, and Ernest

14

Arambula’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Arbitration Award. See Motion,

15

ECF No. 28. Defendants seek to file under seal an unredacted version of the arbitration award in

16
17
18
19
20
21

American Arbitration Association Arbitration Case No. 01-19-0002-6123 (“Arbitration Award”) in
support of their Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. See ECF No. 27.
On October 17, 2018, eBay filed a complaint in California state court against Amazon.com
(“Amazon”), asserting various claims based on eBay’s User Agreement. Amazon moved to compel
arbitration based on the Agreement’s mandatory arbitration provision, and the California state court
granted Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration on April 19, 2019. See ECF No. 27-3. On July 31,
2019, eBay filed the present action against Defendants—three Amazon managers. See ECF No. 1

22

¶ 1. The parties stipulated to transfer this case to arbitration. See ECF No. 21. The Arbitration

23

Award resulted from the arbitration proceeding between eBay and Amazon, Defendants, and other

24

Amazon employees or ex-employees. See ECF No. 27-2.

25

Defendants seek to confirm the Arbitration Award. In support, they have filed a redacted

26

version of the Arbitration Award, seeking leave to file an unredacted version of the Award under

27

seal. Defendants redactions pertain to four categories of information: (1) personal identifying

28

information of third parties; (2) employment records; (3) Amazon business operation, strategy, and

1

employee compensation information; and (4) internal Amazon emails relating to business operations

2

and strategy. See ECF No. 28. Defendants provide declarations of (1) Maria Catana, a litigation

3

paralegal at Amazon and (2) Moez Kaba, counsel for Defendants, in support of the confidentiality

4
5
6

of the information at issue.

See Catana Decl., ECF No. 28-1; Kaba Decl., ECF No. 28-2.

Defendants’ Motion is unopposed, and the time to file an opposition has passed.

See

Civ. L.R. 7-11(b).1
Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

7
I.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

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

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor
of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

13
1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
14
15
16

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with
“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

17
disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see
18
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

generally exist “when such ‘court files might … become a vehicle for improper purposes,’”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as
sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact
that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that the information at issue in
Defendants’ sealing motion should be filed under seal. See ECF No. 29. Since parties cannot
stipulate to sealing, the Court DENIES the parties’ stipulation.
2

1

at 1179. Further, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

2

reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

3

In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

4

Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the sealing motion to include “a specific statement of the

5

applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an

6

explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that

7

will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.”

8

Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1).

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are

set forth in the table below:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Redacted Portions
Defendants Seek to Seal
Highlighted portions of Kaba
Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B
at 17 n.16; 21:8; 22:7; 23:11,
23, n.17, n.18; 25:2, 11;
45:11, 18, 21; 46:2–3, 19,
n.27; 47:19; 48:11; 49:6, 13;
50:7, n.29; 51:23; 58 n.32;
59:16; 60:3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13–15,
17, 19, 21; 61:2, 4–5, 9, 13–14,
16, n.35; 62:4, 11–13, 15, 17;
63:17; 64:1, 4–5.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Highlighted portions of Kaba
Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B at
15:16–17; 32:16–18; 33:1–11,
14–15, 17–18; 37:12, 14–15;
38:1–10; 39:2, 13–22; 40:1.

Description of
Information
Highlighted portions
reference personal
identifying and contact
information for third
parties, including email
addresses, phone numbers,
and eBay usernames. The
Kaba Declaration indicates
that “[p]ublic disclosure of
this information could
expose these individuals to
abuse and harassment, and
would infringe upon their
privacy interests.”
ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 5.

Ruling

GRANTED, since the
information is confidential
personal identifying information
of minimal relevance to the
merits of the motion to confirm
the arbitration award, and
Defendants’ request is narrowly
tailored. See, e.g., Davis v.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,
No. 3:19–cv–04397–WHO,
2021 WL 369538, at *17
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021); In re
High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
No. 11–CV–02509–LHK,
2013 WL 163779, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013)
(granting motion to seal
documents that “include
personal information of nonparties”).
Highlighted portions
GRANTED, since the
reference employment
information pertains to
records and attorney
confidential employment
communications regarding records of minimal relevance to
employment-related
the merits of the motion to
litigation pertaining to third confirm the arbitration award,
parties. The Kaba
and Defendants’ request is
Declaration indicates that
narrowly tailored. See Johnson
the excerpts pertain to
v. San Benito Cty.,
“specific employee
No. 12–CV–03691–LHK,
3

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
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Highlighted portions of Kaba
Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B
at 14:16–17; 15:4–5, 10–15,
18–20; 20:14; 25:13–14;
35:2–3; 37:12–14, n.26; 46:5;
47:11–14; 74 n.43

performance issues,
discipline, reasons for
termination, and
employment records
related to third parties,”
and are “not directly
relevant to Plaintiff’s
allegations in the
arbitration proceeding, nor
are relevant to Defendants’
motion to confirm the
Award.” See
ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 6. Further,
the Kaba Declaration
indicates that “public
disclosure of such
information could lead to
harassment and
embarrassment for the third
parties, and infringes upon
their privacy interests in
keeping their employment
records confidential.” See
id.
Highlighted portions
reference Amazon business
operation, strategy, and
employee compensation
information. The Catana
Declaration indicates that
such information pertains
to “Amazon’s sales
strategies,” which, if
public, could make
Amazon “lose its
competitive advantage
because competitors could
use these insights to adjust
their own strategies and
operations to adopt
Amazon’s strategies and
compete for third-party
sellers.” See ECF No. 28-1
¶ 6. Further, the Catana
Declaration indicates that
“[c]ompetitors could . . .
compete for employees by
using non-public
knowledge regarding
Amazon’s employee
compensation methods.”
See id.

27
28
4

2013 WL 6248274, at *7 n.5
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013).

GRANTED, as confidential
internal financial and business
information. See, e.g., In re
Electronic Arts,
298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569
(9th Cir. 2008) (finding
compelling reasons for sealing
“business information that might
harm a litigant’s competitive
strategy”); In re Google
Location Hist. Litig.,
514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 25, 2021)
(“Compelling reasons may exist
to seal trade secrets, marketing
strategies, product development
plans, detailed product-specific
financial information, customer
information, internal reports and
other such materials that could
harm a party’s competitive
standing[.]”) (internal quotations
omitted); In re High-Tech Emp.
Antitrust Litig.,
2013 WL 163779, at *5
(granting leave to seal
“Defendants’ compensation and
recruiting strategies, policies,
and procedures, including
quantitative data concerning
those topics,” which “could
cause Defendants’ competitive

1
2
3

Highlighted portions of Kaba
Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B
at 26:22–23; 28:3; 29:13–15,
18–19; 43:19–25; 44:4–5;
47:9; 72:5–7.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

III.

Highlighted portions are
quotations from internal
Amazon emails regarding
business operation and
strategy. The Catana
Declaration indicates that
these emails “reveal details
of strategic business
discussions and operations
within Amazon sales
teams” and “relate to
Amazon’s strategies for
recruiting third-party
sellers,” for which
“Amazon actively
competes with other
companies.” See
ECF No. 28-1 ¶ 7. The
Catana Declaration further
indicates that “[i]f these
details became public,
Amazon, could lose its
competitive advantage
because competitors could
use these insights to adjust
their own strategies and
operations to adopt
Amazon’s strategies.” See
id.

harm”).
GRANTED, as confidential
internal financial and business
information. See, e.g., In re
Electronic Arts,
298 Fed.Appx. at 569; In re
Google Location Hist. Litig.,
514 F.Supp.3d at 1162.

ORDER

17

Based on the above reasoning, Defendants’ administrative motion is GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: March 21, 2022
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
5