1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 C. JOHANNES HETLAND, Case No. 19-cv-02288-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL

10 LENDINGTREE, LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 68, 80, 84 Defendant. 11

12 13 Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file documents under seal.1 14 (Dkt. Nos. 68, 80, 84.)2 LendingTree, LLC (“LendingTree”) seeks to file under seal exhibits and 15 supporting documents in connection with its motion and reply brief. (Dkt. Nos. 68 & 84.) Mr. 16 Hetland seeks to file under seal documents in connection with and in support of his opposition. 17 (Dkt. No. 80.) After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court rules as set forth 18 below. 19 DISCUSSION 20 There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. 21 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978). Courts generally apply a “compelling 22 reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents, recognizing that “a strong 23 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 25 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. 26 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 3 & 10.) 1 First Databank, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2 2020). Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party 3 “establishes that the document, or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 4 otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” or “sealable.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 5 Confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of 6 confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” 7 standard. Exeltis USA Inc.,

, at *1; see also In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17- 8 cv-0108-GPC-MDD,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing is 9 warranted to prevent competitors from “gaining insight into the parties’ business model and 10 strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC),

, at *4-5 11 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). 12 II. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal 13 a. Sealing & Rule 56 Motion 14 LendingTree seeks to seal documents in support of its summary judgment motion. (Dkt. 15 No. 64.) Exhibits A-E and G-M are sealable. (Dkt. Nos. 64-4, 64-5, 64-6, 64-8, 64-11.) They 16 contain and reflect confidential business information that offers insight into LendingTree’s 17 business model and strategy, and therefore satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard. See Exeltis, 18

, at *1; In re Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. However, excerpts of 19 Exhibit F do not warrant sealing. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). LendingTree seeks to seal e- 20 mail correspondence regarding Mr. Hetland and Mr. Wilson. For instance, one e-mail states that 21 Mr. Wilson is “done with [Mr. Hetland],” and that the “comp situation ended that relationship.” 22 (Dkt. No. 68-15 at 3.) The e-mail continues with comments regarding the Burlingame office 23 culture, and summaries of workplace disputes between Mr. Hetland and other LendingTree 24 employees. (Id. at 3-4.) At bottom, these messages regarding interpersonal disputes between 25 LendingTree employees do not implicate any “sensitive personal information” or business 26 information that sealing is intended to protect, see Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-CV- 27 04955-LHK,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018), and therefore do not warrant 1 and information, see Exeltis USA Inc.,

, at *1, warrants sealing. (Dkt. No. 68- 2 15 at 7.) 3 b. Sealing & Opposition 4 Mr. Hetland seeks to seal documents in support of his opposition designated “confidential” 5 by LendingTree pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. (Dkt. Nos. 80, 80-1 at 2 ¶ 2.) In 6 response, LendingTree filed the declaration of Sami Hasan, counsel for LendingTree, in support of 7 its confidentiality designations and Mr. Hetland’s sealing motion. (See Dkt. No. 83.) 8 Under the Local Rules of this District, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that 9 allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 10 document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79–5(d)(1)(A). Nonetheless, 11 Exhibits A-O attached to Mr. Hetland’s sealing motion are sealable—they implicate confidential 12 business information that reflects LendingTree’s business model and strategy. (Dkt. No. 80-3, 80- 13 4, 80-5, 80-6, 80-7, 80-8, 80-9, 80-10, 80-11, 80-12, 80-13, 80-14, 80-15, 80-16, 80-17.) See 14 Exeltis,

, at *1; In re Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. 15 Exhibit P, Mr. Wilson’s April 25, 2018 notes, does not satisfy the “compelling reasons” 16 standard. (Dkt. No. 80-18.) The excerpts Mr. Hetland seeks to seal do not mention or discuss any 17 specific terms of his compensation plan that reflect a business model or strategy. See In re 18 Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. While Exhibit P contains information regarding Mr. 19 Hetland’s work performance, as well as a summary of Mr. Hetland’s complaints regarding his 20 compensation, this information does not implicate any sealable personal or private information. 21 (Dkt. 80-18 at 2-3.) See also Hadley,

, at *3 (“[C]ompelling reasons exist to 22 seal sensitive personal information such as financial information, medical records and conditions, 23 phone numbers, and addresses.”) (citation omitted); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 24 No. C01-00988 MJJ,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“[C]ompelling reasons 25 exist to keep personal information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest[.]”). 26 Exhibit Q similarly contains non-sealable information. (Dkt. No. 80-19.) The March 5, 27 2018 and March 6, 2018 e-mails between Messrs. Wilson and Beckstein do not contain any 1 re Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. These e-mails concern Mr. Hetland’s work 2 performance—specifically, Messrs. Wilson and Beckstein’s discussion of how to “restructure the 3 Burlingame team[,]” eliminate Mr. Hetland’s position, and Mr. Wilson’s general grievances 4 regarding Mr. Hetland’s complaints and conduct. (Id.) These messages do not implicate any 5 personal information that warrants sealing. See Hadley,

, at *3; Nursing Home 6 Pension Fund,

, at *2. 7 Mr. Wilson’s e-mail to Mr. Salvage in Exhibit R is not sealable for substantially similar 8 reasons—it contains no sealable personal or business information. (Dkt. No. 80-20 at 3.) See 9 Hadley,

, at *3; Exeltis,

, at *1. However, Mr. Wilson’s e- 10 mail about LendingTree’s organizational structure and related “Talking Points” implicates sealable 11 information regarding LendingTree’s business model and strategy. (Dkt. No. 80-20 at 3.) See 12 also In re Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. Accordingly, Exhibit R is sealable in part. 13 c. Sealing & Reply 14 LendingTree seeks to seal documents submitted in support of its reply brief. (Dkt. No. 84.) 15 The documents, Exhibits N and O, are sealable. (Dkt. Nos. 84-5, 84-6.) They contain confidential 16 business information whose disclosure presents a risk of competitive harm. See In re Qualcomm

WL 5176922, at *2. For instance, Exhibit N contains information regarding 18 LendingTree’s Monthly SEM revenue. (Dkt. No. 84-5.) Exhibit O, (Dkt. No. 84-6), contains 19 specific and sealable information concern certain employees’ compensation plans, see Hadley, 20

, at *3, as well as sealable messages concerning the plans’ calculations, see In 21 re Qualcomm Litig.,

, at *2. 22 CONCLUSION 23 LendingTree’s first administrative motion to seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 24 part. Mr. Hetland’s sealing motion is likewise GRANTED in part and DENIED part. 25 LendingTree’s motion to seal exhibits attached in support of its reply is GRANTED. 26 // 27 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: May 3, 2021 3 4 ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

«13

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28