Cortes v. Market Connect Group, Inc. et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting in part 34 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The request to file the exhibits under seal is granted, but the request to file the memorandum under seal is denied without prejudice. If Cortes has some other memorandum in mind, he may bring a renewed motion asking that it be filed under seal. No later than September 1, 2015, Cortes must file the exhibits, lodge copies with the Court, and send copies to opposing counsel. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 8/28/15. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CESAR CORTES, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,

CASE NO. 14cv784-LAB (DHB)

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15

vs.
MARKET CONNECT GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants.

16

Cesar Cortes filed a motion to seal certain documents in support of his motion for

17

class certification. (Docket no. 34.) They include exhibits attached to declarations, and his

18

memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion for class certification.

19

There is a strong underlying presumption that the public will have access to any

20

document filed with the Court. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th

21

Cir.2002). The standards for sealing documents in support of dispositive and nondispositive

22

motions are different. A dispositive motion requires a showing that "compelling reasons"

23

support a need for secrecy. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

24

1180 (9th Cir. 2006). But for nondispositive motions, the public’s interest in the materials is

25

weaker. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

26

Motions for class certification may be either dispositive or nondispositive. Unless the

27

denial of the motion would effectively end the case, most courts treat such a motion as

28

nondispositive. See Ross v. Bar None Enterprises, Inc., 2014 WL 2700901, slip op. at *2
-1-

14cv784

1

(E.D.Cal., June 13, 2014). Here, Cortes' claim is substantial enough that the case could

2

continue even if certification were denied, and the Court finds the motion nondispositive.

3

Sealing documents in support of a nondispositive motion requires a showing of "good

4

cause," i.e., a showing of specific prejudice or harm that will result if the request to seal is

5

denied. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

6

Cir. 2002). Here, the Court entered a protective order during discovery. See Kamakana, 447

7

F.3d at 1180 (explaining that in issuing a protective order, a court has already found good

8

cause to protect the information from disclosure). The Court accepts Cortes' unopposed

9

representation that the exhibits were covered by the protective order, and finds good cause

10

to seal them.

11

As for the memorandum of points and authorities, it has already been filed in the

12

docket, where the public has access to it, and there has been no showing of good cause. It

13

may be that Cortes is referring to some other memorandum, but if so, his motion does not

14

make that clear.

15

This motion is GRANTED IN PART. The request to file the exhibits under seal is

16

GRANTED, but the request to file the memorandum under seal is DENIED WITHOUT

17

PREJUDICE. If Cortes has some other memorandum in mind, he may bring a renewed

18

motion asking that it be filed under seal. No later than September 1, 2015, Cortes must file

19

the exhibits, lodge copies with the Court, and send copies to opposing counsel.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2015

23
24

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
-2-

14cv784