Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Caudle v. Sprint/United Management Company, C 17-06874 WHA. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181220988 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In connection with plaintiffs' motion for class certification, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal various exhibits containing material designated as "confidential" by defendant Sprint/United Management Company pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 30). In this circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal
More

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

In connection with plaintiffs' motion for class certification, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal various exhibits containing material designated as "confidential" by defendant Sprint/United Management Company pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 30).

In this circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related" to the merits bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). A particularized showing of "good cause" under FRCP 26(c), however, suffices to warrant sealing of judicial records in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Id. at 1179-80.

Our court of appeals has not ruled on whether a motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the merits for the purposes of determining whether the compelling reasons standard applies. "[M]ost district courts to consider the question," however, "have found that a motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action and therefore merits application of the compelling reasons standard. Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-02989 LHK, 2016 WL 7374214, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (Judge Lucy Koh). Here, it is certainly the case that the issues raised at class certification were intertwined with the merits of the action, and therefore this order applies the compelling reasons standard.

With the foregoing principles in mind, this order finds that Sprint has failed to show a compelling reason for sealing the exhibits related to (1) compensation documents that explain Sprint's incentive compensation structure for its retail salesforce, (2) an email thread summarizing changes to Sprint's retail incentive compensation program, and (3) Sprint's retail satisfaction survey. Sprint cites its desire "to keep its compensation structure documents private and confidential" in order "[t]o maintain its competitive advantage" and the fact that the information "is not generally known to the public or to [Sprint's] competitors" (see Dkt. No. 33 ¶¶ 5, 7-8). Such vague notions of competitive harm upon public disclosure, however, are outweighed by the strong public interest in disclosure.

Sprint also seeks to seal the damages spreadsheet, attached as Exhibit F to the Haines Declaration. It explains that the exhibit contains private financial information of employees (id. ¶ 6). Moreover, that specific information, to the extent not already revealed elsewhere, proved unnecessary to adjudicate plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Under these circumstances, this order finds compelling reasons to keep the damages spreadsheet under seal. This is without prejudice to whether the same material could be filed under seal at a later proceeding.

Accordingly, the administrative motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART to the extent stated above. Plaintiffs shall file on the public docket unredacted versions of the documents that comport with this order by JANUARY 4, 2019 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer