Antone v. Wells Fargo Financial National Bank

Filing 21

ORDER granting ECF No. 20 Stipulation to Seal Exhibit 4 Attached to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 , p.32-92). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 8/28/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Case 3:18-cv-00236-LRH-WGC Document 20 Filed 08/27/18 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5

RICK D. ROSKELLEY, ESQ., Bar # 3192
KAITLYN M. BURKE, ESQ., Bar # 13454
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone:
702.862.8800
Fax No.:
702.862.8811
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL NATIONAL BANK

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
NICOLE ANTONE,
12
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00236-LRH-WGC

13
vs.
14
15
16

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL
NATIONAL BANK (FKA Wells Fargo
Bank, National Association), a foreign
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive,

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SEAL
EXHIBIT 4 ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT

17
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

Plaintiff NICOLE ANTONE (“Antone”) and Defendant WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL
NATIONAL BANK (“Wells Fargo”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby
submit the following Stipulation requesting that the Court issue an order sealing Exhibit 4 attached
to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1, p. 32-92).
The Ninth Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial
files and records in Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.
2016). There, the Court recognized that a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden of
meeting the “compelling reasons” standard, as previously articulated in Kamakana v. City and
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Under the compelling reasons standard, “a

Case 3:18-cv-00236-LRH-WGC Document 20 Filed 08/27/18 Page 2 of 4

1

court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for

2

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.

3

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the

4

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

5

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. For example, the Ninth Circuit noted that “sources of

6

business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” could constitute a

7

compelling reason. Id.

8

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit noted an exception to the compelling reasons standard where

9

a party may satisfy the less exacting “good cause” standard for sealed materials attached to a

10

discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case. Id. “The good cause language comes from

11

Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in the discovery process: ‘The court

12

may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

13

oppression, or undue burden or expense.’” Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)). “For good cause to exist,

14

the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no

15

protective order is granted.” Phillips v. General Motors, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

The Ninth Circuit further clarified that the labels of “dispositive” and “nondispositive” will not be

17

the determinative factor for deciding which test to apply because the focal consideration is “whether

18

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

19

1101.

20

Here, the parties request that Exhibit 4 to the Complaint be sealed. (ECF No. 1, p. 32-92).

21

Exhibit 4 to the Complaint constitutes documents that are confidential personnel documents

22

describing Defendant’s process for evaluating its employees. Id. The documents in Exhibit 4 are

23

documents that are to be exchanged in discovery and therefore, are subject to the parties’ protective

24

order governing discovery documents. (ECF No. 18). Additionally, the documents to be sealed,

25

while attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, do not go to the merits of the action itself. Indeed, the

26

documents are simply likely to be used in support of future summary judgment briefing, and

27

therefore, have no more than a tangential relationship to the merits of the case. Even if the Court

28

views the parties’ request to seal Exhibit 4 as “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case,”
2.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

Case 3:18-cv-00236-LRH-WGC Document 20 Filed 08/27/18 Page 3 of 4

1

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, because they are attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the parties

2

can meet the compelling reasons test. The reason the parties seek to seal Exhibit 4 to the Complaint

3

is because the documents are a source “of business information that might harm” Defendant’s

4

competitive standing, which is an example of a compelling reason that the Court has discretion to

5

recognize. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.

6

Specifically, public disclosure of Exhibit 4 would cause an identifiable, significant harm in

7

that Defendant’s confidential financial information utilized in evaluating employees would be

8

disclosed to its competitors.

9

financial targets, and specific profit and loss metrics that are confidential information that would

The documents contain customer performance statistics, yearly

10

give Defendant’s competitors an unfair advantage.

11

regarding Defendant’s financial performance for a range of years and in a region that would harm its

12

competitive standing. It would also disclose Defendant’s specific factors in evaluating management

13

employees that is kept confidential from other employees in the company and the public. Further,

14

the documents included in Exhibit 4 to the Complaint fall under the confidential designation

15

pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order governing the disclosure of discovery documents

16

identified as a trade secret or confidential financial information. (ECF No. 18). Rule 26(c) allows

17

the Court to protect “trade secrets[s] or other confidential research, development or commercial

18

information.” Indeed, this Court has sealed documents for this reason in the past and should do so

19

again here. See, e.g., Youtoo Techs., Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 3-17-cv-00414-LRH-WGC, 2017 WL

20

3396496, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2017) (granting motions to seal documents designed confidential in

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

3.

In fact, they contain detailed information

Case 3:18-cv-00236-LRH-WGC Document 20 Filed 08/27/18 Page 4 of 4

1

a protective order). Therefore, the parties stipulate and request that the Court issue an order sealing

2

Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1, p. 32-92).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Dated: August 21, 2018

Dated: August 21, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason D. Guinasso, Esq.
JASON D. GUINASSO, ESQ.
HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC

/s/ Kaitlyn M. Burke, Esq.
RICK D. ROSKELLEY, ESQ.
KAITLYN M. BURKE, ESQ.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
NICOLE ANTONE

10

Attorneys for Defendant
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL NATIONAL
BANK

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

August 28, 2018
DATED: ___________________________

16
17
18

Firmwide:156629140.1 091367.1024

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
702.862.8800

4.