Filed: Dec. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2019
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 109, 111, 121, 127] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are four administrative motions to file documents under seal: (1) Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109); (2) Parties' Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (ECF 111); (3) Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 109, 111, 121, 127] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are four administrative motions to file documents under seal: (1) Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109); (2) Parties' Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (ECF 111); (3) Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents i..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 109, 111, 121, 127]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are four administrative motions to file documents under seal: (1) Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109); (2) Parties' Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (ECF 111); (3) Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to and Motion to Exclude Evidence (ECF 121); and (4) Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Hearing on Class Certification Motion (ECF 127).
The motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097.
Sealing motions filed in this district also must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.
Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). "If the Designating Party does not file a responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
II. DISCUSSION
This Court follows numerous other district courts within the Ninth Circuit in concluding that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Wetzel v. CertainTeed Corp., No. C16-1160JLR, 2019 WL 1236859, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2019) ("[S]ince Chrysler, district courts that have addressed the issue have regularly found that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal exhibits attached to motions for class certification."); McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-CV-00986-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) ("[C]ourts apply the compelling reasons standard to a motion to seal a document filed in connection with a motion for class certification."); In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying compelling reasons standard to documents relating to class certification); Weisberg v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) ("Because the Motion for Class Certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard applies in determining whether to grant the Application to Seal."). Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court sets forth its rulings on the sealing motions as follows.
A. Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109)
Plaintiffs have filed a sealing motion with respect to certain documents on the basis that they contain information designated by Defendants as confidential. The documents in question are Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification, the Rebuttal Declaration of Stefan Boedeker, and certain exhibits to the Declaration of Robert S. Green in support of Plaintiff's Reply. As the designating parties, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that compelling reasons exist to seal. Defendants seek more limited redactions than those proposed by Plaintiffs, and Defendants demonstrate the existence of compelling reasons for their proposed redactions through their Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion and attached declarations of Jeffrey B. Margulies, Ashley Hack, and W. Joshua Hoffman. See ECF 112.
Thus, Plaintiffs' sealing motion is GRANTED as to the narrower subset of redactions requested by the designating parties, Defendants, and otherwise is DENIED. The Court's ruling is summarized in the following chart.
ECF Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning
No.
109-4 Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Support of Motion for 1:21; 1:15; 2:5-9; marketing competitor analysis,
Class Certification 2:23-24; 4:10; 4:12; confidential sales data, internal
4:14-16; 4:23-25; training information, vendor
4:27; 5:10-11; 10:21-24. relationships, and business
objectives. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6,
ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶
2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-6 Rebuttal Declaration of GRANTED as to ¶ Information reflects Defendants'
Stefan Boedeker 6(1), (7), (8), (9), internal training information,
(10); ¶ 7(a), (a)(i), internal confidential data
(a)(ii), (b), (b)(iv), regarding traffic visits to
(c)(i), (c)(fn. 33), Toyota.com, confidential sales
(c)(iii), (d), (d)(i), data, vendor distribution data,
(c)(fn. 34), (d)(ii), and confidential survey data.
(e), (e)(i), (f), (f)(i), Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2;
(g). Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF
112-3.
109-10 Exhibit 1 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects internal
Declaration of Robert S. 7:13; 7:18; 12:21; confidential data regarding
Green 16:19; 16:22; 17:19. traffic visits to Toyota.com.
Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2;
Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF
112-3.
109-12 Exhibit 2 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Robert S. entire exhibit. internal confidential training
Green materials. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6,
ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶
2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-14 Exhibit 3 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Robert S. entire exhibit. internal confidential training
Green materials. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6,
ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶
2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-20 Exhibit 8 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Robert S. highlighted portions competitor analysis. Hack Decl.
Green redacted by Plaintiffs. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann
Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-22 Exhibit 9 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Robert S. highlighted portions competitor analysis, internal
Green redacted by Plaintiffs. training information, and internal
confidential data regarding traffic
visits to Toyota.com. Hack Decl.
¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann
Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-24 Exhibit 10 to Reply DENIED. Sealing
Declaration of Robert S. not sought by
Green Defendants,
designating parties.
109-26 Exhibit 11 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Robert S. highlighted portions competitor analysis and internal
Green redacted by Plaintiffs. training information. Hack Decl.
¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann
Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3.
109-28 Exhibit 12 to Reply GRANTED as to Information reflects confidential
Declaration of Robert S. 16:24-25; 18:6; sales data and vendor
Green 18:23; 35:1; 35:5; relationships. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6,
35:14; 35:18; 35:21; ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶
36:3; 36:13-15; 2-7, ECF 112-3.
36:17-18; 37:12.
109-32 Exhibit 15 to Reply GRANTED as to The Court granted leave to seal
Declaration of Robert S. highlighted portions the proposed redactions in a prior
Green redacted by Plaintiffs. motion. See ECF 98.
109-35 Exhibit 17 to Reply DENIED. Sealing
Declaration of Robert S. not sought by
Green Defendants,
designating parties.
B. Parties' Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (ECF 111)
The parties have filed a joint sealing motion with respect to materials that they inadvertently filed on the public docket. The documents in question have been locked by the Clerk's Office pending the Court's ruling on the joint sealing motion. Some of the documents have been filed multiple times on the docket with different portions redacted. Consequently, the same documents are listed multiple times in the chart below, with different ECF numbers. The joint sealing motion is GRANTED.
ECF Document(s) to be Ruling Reasoning
No. Sealed
84-3 Memorandum of Points GRANTED as to 1:6 Information reflects Defendants'
and Authorities in and 6:6. confidential sales data and
Support of Plaintiffs' competitor analysis that the Court
Motion for Class has sealed at ECF 98.
Certification
85-1 Declaration of Robert GRANTED as to 2:1; Information reflects Defendants'
Green in Support of 2:3; 2:19; 2:23; 2:27; confidential sales data and
Plaintiffs' Motion for and 3:3. competitor analysis that the Court
Class Certification has sealed at ECF 98.
87-3 Corrected Memorandum GRANTED as to 1:6 Information reflects Defendants'
of Points and Authorities and 6:6. confidential sales data and
in Support of Plaintiffs' competitor analysis that the Court
Motion for Class has sealed at ECF 98.
Certification
89-4 Corrected Memorandum GRANTED as to 1:6. Information reflects Defendants'
of Points and Authorities confidential sales data and
in Support of Plaintiffs' competitor analysis that the Court
Motion for Class has sealed at ECF 98.
Certification
89-4 Deposition of W. Joshua GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Hoffman 3:18-19; 39:1; 39:11; confidential sales data and
and 48:23. competitor analysis that the Court
has sealed at ECF 98.
104 Corrected Memorandum GRANTED as to 1:6; Information reflects Defendants'
of Points and Authorities 5:5; 5:8. confidential sales data and
in Support of Plaintiffs' competitor analysis that the Court
Motion for Class has sealed at ECF 98.
Certification
104-3 Declaration of Robert GRANTED as to 2:1; Information reflects Defendants'
Green in Support of 2:3; 2:19; 2:23; 2:27; confidential sales data and
Plaintiffs' Motion for and 3:3. competitor analysis that the Court
Class Certification has sealed at ECF 98.
104-7 Exhibit 4 to Declaration GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
of Robert Green in 3:18-19; 39:1; 39:11; confidential sales data and
Support of Plaintiffs' and 48:23. competitor analysis that the Court
Motion for Class has sealed at ECF 98.
Certification (Deposition
of W. Joshua Hoffman)
104-8 Exhibit 5 to Declaration GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
of Robert Green in 49:19. internal business practices,
Support of Plaintiffs' material that the Court has sealed
Motion for Class at ECF 98.
Certification (Deposition
of Ashley Hack)
104-15 Exhibit 12 to Declaration GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
of Robert Green in TOY-ZHENG00004929. confidential competitor analysis
Support of Plaintiffs' that the Court has sealed at ECF
Motion for Class 98.
Certification (Edge
Competitive
Comparison)
104-19 Exhibit 16 to Declaration GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
of Robert Green in entire exhibit. confidential competitor analysis
Support of Plaintiffs' that the Court has sealed at ECF
Motion for Class 98.
Certification
(Correspondence)
104-37 Exhibit 34 to Declaration GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
of Robert Green in TOY-ZHENG00008013. internal business practices,
Support of Plaintiffs' material that the Court has sealed
Motion for Class at ECF 98.
Certification
C. Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections/Motion to Exclude (ECF 121)
Defendants move to seal two exhibits submitted in support of their response to Plaintiffs' objections to, and motion to exclude, certain of Defendants' evidence. The motion is GRANTED, as Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing.
ECF Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning
No.
121-4 Exhibit A to the GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Jeffrey B. highlighted portions marketing competitor analysis
Margulies in Support of and confidential training
Defendants' Response to information. Margulies Decl. ¶
Plaintiffs' Objections to 2, ECF 121-1. Information
and Motion to Exclude previously has been sealed by the
Evidence Submitted by Court at ECF 98.
Defendants in Opposition
to Motion for Class
Certification (August 12,
2019 Letter)
121-4 Exhibit D to the GRANTED as to 5:9-11; Information reflects Defendants'
Declaration of Jeffrey B. 12:3; 12:21; marketing competitor analysis
Margulies in Support of 12:24; 13:2; 13:11; and confidential data reflecting
Defendants' Response to 13:13; 14:5-7; 20:4-5; internal training downloads.
Plaintiffs' Objections to 20:14; 21:2; Margulies Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 121-1.
and Motion to Exclude 22:24; 23:9; 23:16; Information previously has been
Evidence Submitted by 23:20; 70:14; 70:19. sealed by the Court at ECF 98.
Defendants in Opposition
to Motion for Class
Certification (Deposition
of W. Joshua Hoffmann)
D. Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Hearing on Class Certification Motion (ECF 127)
Defendants move to seal portions of the transcript of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The motion is GRANTED.
ECF Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning
No.
126 Transcript of Hearing on GRANTED as to Information reflects Defendants'
Plaintiffs' Motion for 7:14; 7:19; 8:23-25; marketing competitor analysis
Class Certification 9:1; 9:3; 9:5; 9:19-21; and confidential data reflecting
13:20; 13:23; 14:23; internal training downloads.
16:15-16; 16:21; Margulies Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 127-1.
16:22; 18:19; 19:4-6; Information previously has been
19:17; 25:8; 25:11; sealed by the Court at ECF 98.
25:13; 26:18; 26:20-21;
26:24; 29:20;
29:23; 30:14; 32:23;
32:25; 33:1; 43:10;
43:14; 43:19; 43:23.
III. ORDER
(1) Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth herein;
(2) The Parties' Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents (ECF 111) is GRANTED as set forth herein;
(3) Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections to and Motion to Exclude Evidence (ECF 121) is GRANTED as set forth herein; and
(4) Defendants' Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Hearing on Class Certification Motion (ECF 127) is GRANTED as set forth herein.
