Stoba et al v. Saveology.com, LLC et al

Filing 151

ORDER granting defendants' 87 Motion to File Documents Under Seal, granting plaintiffs' ( 103 , 112 , 117 ) Motions to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/31/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GEORGE STOBA and DAPHNE
STOBA, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,

11
12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

SAVEOLOGY.COM, LLC, ET
AL.,

15
16

Defendants

Case No. 13-cv-02925-BAS(NLS)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL (ECF
NO. 87); AND
(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO SEAL (ECF
NOS. 103, 112, 117)

17
18
19

Presently before the Court are several ex parte motions to file documents under

20

seal filed by plaintiffs George Stoba and Daphne Stoba (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and

21

defendants Saveology.com, LLC and Elephant Group, Inc. (collectively

22

“Defendants”) in connection with the motions for summary judgment filed by

23

Defendants and Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

24

(See ECF Nos. 87, 103, 112, 117.) No oppositions were filed.

25

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

26

Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents, the “good cause”

27

standard and the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605

28

F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most
–1–

13cv2925

1

judicial records.” Id. at 677-78.

2

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

3

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

4

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

5

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). “Unless a

6

particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in

7

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.

8

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records

9

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption by

10

meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. “That is, the party must articulate

11

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general

12

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal

13

citations and quotations omitted).

14

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

15

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have

16

become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private

17

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”

18

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he

19

mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

20

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the

21

court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

22

Records attached to non-dispositive motions, however, are not subject to the

23

strong presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos, 565

24

F.3d at 678-79. Because the documents attached to non-dispositive motions “are

25

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” a

26

party moving to seal need only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Federal Rule

27

of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. (internal quotations omitted). The relevant standard

28

for purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information
–2–

13cv2925

1

from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the

2

need for confidentiality.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of

3

Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

4

Under Rule 26(c), only “a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ . . . is

5

sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-

6

dispositive motions.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig.,

7

686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d

8

at 1180 (requiring a “particularized showing” of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc.

9

v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A blanket protective order is not

10

itself sufficient to show “good cause” for sealing particular documents. See Foltz,

11

331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News,

12

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

13

II.

DISCUSSION

14

A.

Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 87)

15

Defendants seek leave to file several documents under seal in connection with

16

their motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86). A motion for summary judgment

17

is a dispositive motion. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, Defendants

18

must meet the compelling reasons standard. See id.

19

The documents Defendants seek leave to file under seal include the Declaration

20

of the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox”) and

21

Exhibits A, B, and C to this declaration.1 Defendants argue the documents, with the

22

exception of Exhibit A, which contains Plaintiffs’ personal identifying information,

23

discuss or incorporate “highly sensitive and confidential business information

24

regarding how [Cox’s] Voice over Internet Protocol technology operates and

25

functions.” (ECF No. 87 at p. 2; ECF No. 87-1 at ¶ 3.) Defendants also seek leave

26

to file under seal Exhibits J, K, L, and M to the Declaration of Abhishek Joshi (ECF

27
28

1

The Court notes Defendants have only lodged these documents. (ECF
No. 89.) They are not filed on the docket in redacted form or with placeholders.
–3–

13cv2925

1

No. 86-8), which consist of documents from Saveology.com, LLC. Defendants argue

2

these documents reveal “Saveology’s highly sensitive, confidential, and uniquely

3

coded call path.” (ECF No. 87 at p. 2.) With respect to both sets of documents,

4

Defendants argue disclosure could harm Cox and Saveology.com, LLC. (Id.; ECF

5

No. 87-1 at ¶¶ 3-4.)

6

Having reviewed and considered the motion and the lodged documents, the

7

Court finds Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal the lodged

8

documents (ECF Nos. 88, 89). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is granted.

9

B.

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 103, 112, 117)

10

Plaintiffs seek to file several documents under seal in connection with their

11

oppositions to the motions for summary judgment filed by (1) Saveology.com, LLC

12

and Elephant Group, Inc., and (2) Time Warner Cable, Inc. (ECF Nos. 112, 117) and

13

their motion for class certification (ECF No. 103). As with Defendants’ motion, any

14

documents filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must meet the

15

compelling reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. With respect to

16

documents filed in connection with a motion for class certification, unless the denial

17

of a motion for class certification would constitute the death knell of a case, “the vast

18

majority of []courts within this circuit” treat motions for class certification as non-

19

dispositive motions to which the “good cause” sealing standard applies. Dugan v.

20

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-cv-02549-WHA(NJV), 2013 WL 1435223, at *1

21

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (citing In re High–Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-

22

cv-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (compiling

23

cases and, though recognizing that “there may be circumstances in which a motion

24

for class certification is case dispositive,” stating that “the Court applies a ‘good

25

cause’ standard here in accordance with the vast majority of other courts within this

26

circuit”))). Accordingly, Plaintiffs must meet the good cause standard with respect

27

to sealing documents related to their motion for class certification.

28

In connection with their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs seek to seal
–4–

13cv2925

1

several exhibits attached to the Declaration of Patrick N. Keegan (ECF No. 102 at ¶

2

8). (ECF No. 103.) Having reviewed and considered the motion and the lodged

3

documents, the Court finds Plaintiffs have established good cause to seal the lodged

4

documents (ECF No. 104). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is granted.

5

Plaintiff seek to seal several of the same documents attached as exhibits to the

6

Declarations of Patrick N. Keegan (ECF Nos. 108-1, 116) and Plaintiffs (ECF Nos.

7

115-2, 115-3) in connection with their oppositions to the motions for summary

8

judgment filed by (1) Saveology.com, LLC and Elephant Group, Inc., and (2) Time

9

Warner Cable, Inc. Having reviewed and considered the motions and the lodged

10

documents, the Court finds Plaintiffs have established compelling reasons to seal the

11

lodged documents (ECF No. 104). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to seal are

12

granted.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to seal (ECF No. 87) is

15

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 103, 112, 117) are

16

GRANTED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

DATED: March 31, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–

13cv2925