Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER Granting Defendant Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.'s Motion to File Under Seal Documents In Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification [Doc. 62 ]. Signed by District Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro on 7/29/2022. (anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

PAMELA STEWART and ZULEKHA
ABDUL, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California,

15

v.

16

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive,

18
19

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL
LABORATORIES, INC.’S MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs,

14

17

Case No.: 3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC

Defendants.

[Doc. 62]

20
21

On January 28, 2021, Defendant Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

22

(“Defendant”) filed a motion to file under seal documents in support of Defendant’s

23

opposition to the motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs Pamela Stewart and

24

Zulekha Abdul (“Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 62.) Plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition to

25

the motion. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion to seal is GRANTED.

26

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

27

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public

28

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
1
3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC

1

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one

2

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

3

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

4

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption

5

of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,

6

particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the

7

public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler

8

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d

9

1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

10

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong

11

presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this

12

burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more

13

than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.

14

When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the

15

“compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does

16

not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id.

17

“[C]ourts apply the compelling reasons standard to a motion to seal a document filed in

18

connection with a motion for class certification.” McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc.,

19

No. 17-CV-00986-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018)

20

(collecting cases).

21

The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can

22

show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as

23

the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

24

statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435

25

U.S. at 598). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of

26

the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular

27

case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.

28

Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being
2
3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC

1

used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”

2

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court

3

documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research,

4

development, or commercial information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2885-

5

LHK, 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P.

6

269(c)(1)(G)). Additionally, courts have been willing to seal court filings containing

7

confidential business material, “such as marketing strategies, product development plans,

8

licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin data,” where the “parties have been able

9

to point to concrete factual information” to justify sealing. Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-

10

2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (collecting cases).

11

II.

DISCUSSION

12

Here, Defendant seeks to seal (1) Defendant’s Staffing Model and (2) Defendant’s

13

Progression Program Guidelines, which were filed as Exhibits A and C, respectively, to

14

the Declaration of Tiffani Q. Walten in support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’

15

motion for class certification. (See Doc. 62 at 3.) Defendant alleges these documents

16

“contain highly sensitive information reflecting Quest’s internal decision-making and

17

business strategies that could be used by competitors to Quest’s disadvantage.” (Id.)

18

Regarding the Staffing Model, Defendant contends “Quest treats its Staffing Model as

19

confidential in the normal course of business and takes affirmative steps to limit the

20

disclosure of all such information” because the document contains “Quest’s internal

21

decision-making regarding its business practices related to productivity metrics and

22

customer service strategies for its Patient Service Centers.” (Id. at 6.) Regarding the

23

Progression Program Guidelines, Defendant further alleges its competitors would gain an

24

unfair advantage in the market if allowed access to the Quest Progression Program

25

Guidelines because “they would provide a competitor with information that it could use to

26

hire away PSRs who had progressed or were subject to these Guidelines or otherwise

27

unfairly compete with Quest for qualified candidates for employment in the market.” (Id.)

28

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the documents subject to Defendant’s
3
3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC

1

motion. “Courts routinely permit the sealing of records containing business information

2

which competitors could potentially misuse if disclosed, even in connection with a motion

3

for class certification.” McCurley, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2; see also Quidel Corp. v.

4

Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D.

5

Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff’s “confidential

6

financial and pricing information”); Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int’l, LLC, No.

7

15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 1035730, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (granting

8

motion to seal documents containing defendant’s “pricing and shipping information”

9

where court found such information “could be improperly used” by competitors); Lucas v.

10

Breg, Inc., No. 15-CV-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 5464549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28,

11

2016) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal party’s confidential “sales and

12

marketing data” where “public disclosure of this business information could result in

13

improper use by Breg’s competitors seeking to undercut Breg’s market position”).

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal. (Doc. 62.) The Court

16

directs the Clerk of the Court to accept and FILE UNDER SEAL the lodged documents.

17

(Doc. 63.)

18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 29, 2022
_____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC