San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO, 5 Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Plaintiff, 6 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE v. UNDER SEAL THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 99, 104, 111, 117, 118, COMPANY, INC., 119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128 9 Defendant.

10 The parties have filed numerous administrative motions to file under seal in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The order addresses these motions.

13 U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 18 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 19 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show “compelling reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To make this showing, the moving party must provide “specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

6 However, courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions swallow the strong presumption in favor of disclosure. “There fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(A).

It is well established among District Courts in this Circuit that motions for class certification are more than tangentially related to the underlying merits of a case and are therefore subject to the compelling reasons standard to file under seal. See, e.g., Waldrup v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 2018 WL 4586188, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at *3; Cohen v. Trump, 2016 WL 3036302, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). Motions for summary judgment are also more than tangentially related to the merits of a lawsuit. The court will apply the compelling reasons standard to all of the instant motions to seal.

A. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. Nos. 119, 121, 127.

Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 4:19-21; 5:1-12; 5:15-17; 5:23- Denied. The court finds Certification 24; 5:26-27; 6:1-3; 10:25-11:2; Defendant has not met the 17:23-24; 14:15-18. compelling reasons standard. In addition, the material largely concerns Defendant’s 1 communications to the public and is therefore not 2 subject to sealing.

3 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Its entirety. Denied. The court finds Michael Jaurigue Defendant has not met the 4 compelling reasons standard. In addition, the 5 material largely concerns Defendant’s 6 communications to the public and is therefore not 7 subject to sealing.

Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Its entirety. Denied. The court finds Michael Jaurigue Defendant has not met the compelling reasons 9 standard. In addition, the material largely concerns 10 Defendant’s communications to the 11 public and is therefore not subject to sealing.

12 Moreover, the request is not narrowly tailored.

14 B. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Defendant’s Opposition to Class Certification. Dkt. Nos. 117, 118.

16 Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling Defendants The Häagen-Dazs Lines 1:17-20, 1:22-24, 4:12-15, Denied. The court finds Shoppe Company, Inc., Nestlé and 4:16-18. Defendant has not met the compelling reasons Dreyer’s Ice Cream Company, standard. In addition, the and Nestlé USA, Inc.’s material largely concerns Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Defendant’s for Class Certification communications to the 20 public and is therefore not subject to sealing.

Declaration of Jennifer McLean Lines 3:21-28, 4:2-5, 4:7-9, and Granted as to ¶ 15; in Support of Defendants’ 4:12-20. otherwise denied. The Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion court finds Defendant has for Class Certification not met the compelling 24 reasons standard.

Exhibit A to the Declaration of In its entirety. Granted.

25 Jennifer McLean in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Exhibit B to the Declaration of In its entirety. Denied. The court finds Jennifer McLean in Support of Defendant has not met the Defendants’ Opposition to compelling reasons Plaintiff’s Motion for Class standard Certification Declaration of Matthew Bishop Lines 3:21-24, 3:26-4:1, and Granted as to ¶ 11, in Support of Defendants’ 4:7-15. otherwise denied. The Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion court finds Defendant has not met the compelling for Class Certification reasons standard. In addition, the material 6 largely concerns Defendant’s 7 communications to the public and is therefore not 8 subject to sealing.

Exhibit A to the Declaration of In its entirety. Granted.

Matthew Bishop in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification Exhibit B to the Declaration of In its entirety. Denied. The court finds Matthew Bishop in Support of Defendant has not met the Defendants’ Opposition to compelling reasons Plaintiff’s Motion for Class standard Certification Exhibit C to the Declaration of In its entirety. Denied. The court finds Matthew Bishop in Support of Defendant has not met the Defendants’ Opposition to compelling reasons Plaintiff’s Motion for Class standard. In addition, the Certification material largely concerns Defendant’s 18 communications to the public and is therefore not 19 subject to sealing.

20 C. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Class 21 Certification. Dkr. Nos. 123, 124, 128 Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of 7:11-13; 14:4-8. Denied. The court finds 23 Her Motion for Class Defendant has not met the Certification compelling reasons 24 standard. In addition, the material largely concerns 25 Defendant’s communications to the 26 public and is therefore not subject to sealing.

1 D. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Motion for 2 Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 92.

3 This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the || court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied || without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to || file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any || material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.

8 E. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff's Opposition to Summary 9 Judgment. Dkt. Nos. 99, 104 10 These motions do not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motions are denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, the parties may re-file one joint motion E B to file under seal that is supported by a declaration from the designating party (or parties). In the S 14 renewed joint motion to file under seal, the parties shall not seek to seal any material as to which 15 the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.

B 16 F. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Reply Separate 7 Statement and Exhibits Dkt. No. 111.

5 18 This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the 19 court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to °° file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal.

IT ISSO ORDERED. °° Dated: November 20, 2019 25 EDWARD J. DAVILA 36 United States District Judge 28 Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL