ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO SEAL

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff Delia Wilson brought this putative class action against Conair Corporation, asserting violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and breach of implied warranty. Defendant now requests the court seal (1) portions of defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Exhibit B to the Saba Declaration, and a portion of defendant's evidentiary objections to the declaration of Jennifer L. MacPherson, (Docket No. 112); and (2) portions of plaintiff's memorandum in support of her motion for leave to file a FAC, the MacPherson declaration, and Exhibit B to the MacPherson Declaration, (Docket No. 114).

Plaintiff requests the court seal portions of plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for leave to file a FAC. (Docket No. 115.)

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.

I. Defendant's Requests to Seal

Defendant offers little explanation for its requests to seal. The statements defendant moves to seal all refer to Pam Keegan's deposition testimony about defendant's system for handling consumer complaints and reporting complaints to the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). Defendant argues Keegan's deposition was designated confidential under the parties' stipulated protective order, signed by Magistrate Judge McAuliffe. (Stipulation and Order Governing Confidential Info. (Docket No. 28).) Defendant contends the deposition is confidential "because Ms. Keegan testified about Conair Corporation's confidential STARS complaint documenting system and internal complaint reporting procedures, as well as reporting within Conair Corporation's legal department regarding consumer complaints." (Docket No. 112.)

This court has previously pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs the interests of public disclosure and access. See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152. The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.

Keegan testified that she believed the legal department is in charge of reviewing consumer complaints to look for possible patterns and that she was "not aware of anybody" who reports consumer complaints to the CPSC at Conair. (See Saba Declaration Ex. B, Tr. of Test. of Keegan (Docket No. 113-3).) It is difficult to see how this qualifies as confidential information that needs to be kept from the public. Defendant's concerns do not outweigh the history of access or the public policies favoring disclosure to the public.

The court has reviewed the documents which defendant requests sealed and finds no compelling reason to shield them from public scrutiny. Accordingly, the court must deny defendant's requests to seal.

II. Plaintiff's Request to Seal

Plaintiff requests the court seal a portion of her reply in support of her motion for leave to file a FAC. (Pl.'s Request to Seal at 1.) The lines plaintiff request sealed "contain an excerpt from Pam Keegan's deposition transcript and summarize the deposition." (Id.) Plaintiff explains that she "does not believe" the lines "contain or reference information that should be sealed pursuant to statute or law" but that she was obligated to submit a request to seal under the protective order because defendant "designated the entire Keegan deposition transcript `confidential.'" (Id.)

For all the reasons stated above, the court must also deny plaintiff's request to seal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's and plaintiff's requests to seal be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.