Maraventano v. Nordstrom, Inc et al

Filing 155

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EXPARTE APPLICATION TO FILEUNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL OF CLASS ACTIONSETTLEMENT, CONDITIONALCERTIFICATION OF CLASS FORSETTLEMENT PURPOSES, ANDDECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITSOF MATTHEW ARCHBOLD,KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ANDMAXIM VAYNEROV 150 Motion to File Documents Under Seal Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 5/27/14. (av1)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GINO MARAVENTANO and
NEESHA KURJI,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12
13
14
15

NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington
corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17
18

21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION OF CLASS FOR
SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, AND
DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS
OF MATTHEW ARCHBOLD,
KATHRYN LEE BOYD, AND
MAXIM VAYNEROV

GINA BALASANYAN and NUNE
NALBANDIAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated,

19
20

CASE NOS. 10cv2671 JM (WMC)
11cv2609 JM (WMC)

Plaintiffs,
v.
NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington
corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
-1-

10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

1

On May 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to file under seal

2 Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional
3 certification of class for settlement purposes, and declarations and exhibits of
4 Matthew Archbold, Kathryn Lee Boyd, and Maxim Vaynerov. (Dkt. No. 150.) For
5 the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT
6 PREJUDICE.
7

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy

8 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”
9 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
10 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
11 Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there is “a strong
12 presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
13 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
14 1178–79. Generally, “the public has less of a need for access to court records
15 attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
16 ‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”
17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a particularized
18 showing under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant
19 preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive
20 motions.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, 1138)(citations and internal
21 quotations omitted).
22

In their ex parte application to seal, Plaintiffs argue good cause exists to file

23 the entirety of the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, as
24 well as all of the attached declarations and exhibits, under seal. Plaintiffs contend
25 good cause exists because the motion and supporting documents disclose the terms
26 of the stipulated class settlement, including “confidential material relating to the
27 terms of the Agreement” and “confidential settlement negotiations that form the
28 basis of the Stipulated Settlement.” (Dkt. No. 150 at 2). As support for this
-2-

10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

1 proposition, Plaintiffs rely upon Prosurance Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group,
2 Inc., 2011 WL 704456, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011), in which the court held that
3 good cause existed to seal certain documents associated with the defendants’ motion
4 to determine good faith settlement that discussed or disclosed the terms of the
5 confidential settlement agreement. Notably, Prosurance Group did not involve a
6 class action settlement subject to both preliminary and final approval by the court.
7 Moreover, the court in Prosurance Group found that sealing the defendants’ motion
8 to determine good faith settlement and the plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition in
9 their entirety was not justified given that only portions of the documents addressed
10 the settlement or confidential information. Accordingly, the court required the
11 defendants to file redacted versions of these documents “narrowly tailored to omit
12 only sealable material” and fully sealed only those documents that consisted either
13 entirely or substantially of confidential material relating to the terms of the
14 settlement.
15

Similarly, Plaintiffs in this case seek to seal the entirety of their motion for

16 preliminary approval of settlement as well as all of the attached documents.
17 Plaintiffs generally allege that these documents contain confidential materials, but
18 do not give any further insight into what aspects of these documents may be
19 considered confidential. Given the nature of a motion for preliminary approval of
20 class action settlement, Plaintiffs’ broad allegation that the motion and its
21 supporting documents pertain to the terms of the settlement does not on its own
22 constitute good cause for sealing them entirely. Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs
23 simply have not made a particularized showing of good cause to justify sealing the
24 entirety of Plaintiffs’ filings related to the motion for preliminary approval of class
25 action settlement.
26

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT

27 PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs filing further application to seal. Any further application
28 must be separately filed and narrowly tailored to identify those specific records
-3-

10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

1 Plaintiffs wish to seal (for example, employee records) and their reasons for doing
2 so.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED: May 27, 2014
5
6

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)