1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 EBAY INC, Case No. 19-cv-04422-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF ARBITRATION 10 SONJA BOCH, et al., AWARD 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 28]

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants Sonja Boch, Amanda Sullivan Hedger, and Ernest 14 Arambula’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Arbitration Award. See Motion, 15 ECF No. 28. Defendants seek to file under seal an unredacted version of the arbitration award in American Arbitration Association Arbitration Case No. 01-19-0002-6123 (“Arbitration Award”) in 16 support of their Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. See ECF No. 27. 17 On October 17, 2018, eBay filed a complaint in California state court against Amazon.com 18 (“Amazon”), asserting various claims based on eBay’s User Agreement. Amazon moved to compel 19 arbitration based on the Agreement’s mandatory arbitration provision, and the California state court 20 granted Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration on April 19, 2019. See ECF No. 27-3. On July 31, 21 2019, eBay filed the present action against Defendants—three Amazon managers. See ECF No. 1 22 ¶ 1. The parties stipulated to transfer this case to arbitration. See ECF No. 21. The Arbitration 23 Award resulted from the arbitration proceeding between eBay and Amazon, Defendants, and other 24 Amazon employees or ex-employees. See ECF No. 27-2. 25 Defendants seek to confirm the Arbitration Award. In support, they have filed a redacted 26 version of the Arbitration Award, seeking leave to file an unredacted version of the Award under 27 seal. Defendants redactions pertain to four categories of information: (1) personal identifying 1 employee compensation information; and (4) internal Amazon emails relating to business operations 2 and strategy. See ECF No. 28. Defendants provide declarations of (1) Maria Catana, a litigation 3 paralegal at Amazon and (2) Moez Kaba, counsel for Defendants, in support of the confidentiality of the information at issue. See Catana Decl., ECF No. 28-1; Kaba Decl., ECF No. 28-2. 4 Defendants’ Motion is unopposed, and the time to file an opposition has passed. See 5 Civ. L.R. 7-11(b).1 6 Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD 8 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 9 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 10

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

, 597 11 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 12 of access’ is the starting point.”

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

, 13 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 14 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 15 related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with 16 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 17 disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016); see 18 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records 19 generally exist “when such ‘court files might … become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” 20 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon,

), such as: “to gratify private spite, 21 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as 22 sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto 23 Safety,

(quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact 24 that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 25 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana,

27 1 The Court notes that the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that the information at issue in 1 at 1179. Further, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 2 reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). 3 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 4 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the sealing motion to include “a specific statement of the 5 applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an 6 explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that 7 will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” 8 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are 11 set forth in the table below: 12 Redacted Portions Description of Ruling 13 Defendants Seek to Seal Information Highlighted portions of Kaba Highlighted portions GRANTED, since the 14 Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B reference personal information is confidential at 17 n.16; 21:8; 22:7; 23:11, identifying and contact personal identifying information 15 23, n.17, n.18; 25:2, 11; information for third of minimal relevance to the 45:11, 18, 21; 46:2–3, 19, parties, including email merits of the motion to confirm 16 n.27; 47:19; 48:11; 49:6, 13; addresses, phone numbers, the arbitration award, and 50:7, n.29; 51:23; 58 n.32; and eBay usernames. The Defendants’ request is narrowly 17 59:16; 60:3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13–15, Kaba Declaration indicates tailored. See, e.g., Davis v. 17, 19, 21; 61:2, 4–5, 9, 13–14, that “[p]ublic disclosure of Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 18 16, n.35; 62:4, 11–13, 15, 17; this information could No. 3:19–cv–04397–WHO, 63:17; 64:1, 4–5. expose these individuals to

, at *17 19 abuse and harassment, and (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021); In re would infringe upon their High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., 20 privacy interests.” No. 11–CV–02509–LHK, ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 5.

, at *5 21 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (granting motion to seal 22 documents that “include personal information of non- 23 parties”). Highlighted portions of Kaba Highlighted portions GRANTED, since the 24 Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B at reference employment information pertains to 15:16–17; 32:16–18; 33:1–11, records and attorney confidential employment 25 14–15, 17–18; 37:12, 14–15; communications regarding records of minimal relevance to 38:1–10; 39:2, 13–22; 40:1. employment-related the merits of the motion to 26 litigation pertaining to third confirm the arbitration award, parties. The Kaba and Defendants’ request is 27 Declaration indicates that narrowly tailored. See Johnson performance issues,

, at *7 n.5 1 discipline, reasons for (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013). termination, and 2 employment records related to third parties,” 3 and are “not directly relevant to Plaintiff’s 4 allegations in the arbitration proceeding, nor 5 are relevant to Defendants’ motion to confirm the 6 Award.” See ECF No. 28-2 ¶ 6. Further, 7 the Kaba Declaration indicates that “public 8 disclosure of such information could lead to 9 harassment and embarrassment for the third 10 parties, and infringes upon their privacy interests in 11 keeping their employment records confidential.” See 12

Highlighted portions of Kaba Highlighted portions GRANTED, as confidential 13 Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B reference Amazon business internal financial and business at 14:16–17; 15:4–5, 10–15, operation, strategy, and information. See, e.g., In re 14 18–20; 20:14; 25:13–14; employee compensation Electronic Arts, 35:2–3; 37:12–14, n.26; 46:5; information. The Catana

, 569 15 47:11–14; 74 n.43 Declaration indicates that (9th Cir. 2008) (finding such information pertains compelling reasons for sealing 16 to “Amazon’s sales “business information that might strategies,” which, if harm a litigant’s competitive 17 public, could make strategy”); In re Google Amazon “lose its Location Hist. Litig., 18 competitive advantage

, 1162 (N.D. because competitors could Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) 19 use these insights to adjust (“Compelling reasons may exist their own strategies and to seal trade secrets, marketing 20 operations to adopt strategies, product development Amazon’s strategies and plans, detailed product-specific 21 compete for third-party financial information, customer sellers.” See ECF No. 28-1 information, internal reports and 22 ¶ 6. Further, the Catana other such materials that could Declaration indicates that harm a party’s competitive 23 “[c]ompetitors could . . . standing[.]”) (internal quotations compete for employees by omitted); In re High-Tech Emp. 24 using non-public Antitrust Litig., knowledge regarding

, at *5 25 Amazon’s employee (granting leave to seal compensation methods.” “Defendants’ compensation and 26 See

recruiting strategies, policies, and procedures, including 27 quantitative data concerning tar”) 1 Highlighted portions of Kaba _| Highlighted portions are GRANTED, as confidential Decl., ECF No. 28-2, Ex. B quotations from internal internal financial and business 2 at 26:22—23; 28:3; 29:13-15, Amazon emails regarding information. See, e.g., In re 18-19; 43:19-25; 44:4-5; business operation and Electronic Arts, 3 47:9; 72:5-7. strategy. The Catana

; In re Declaration indicates that Google Location Hist. Litig., 4 these emails “reveal details | 514 F.Supp.3d at 1162. of strategic business 5 discussions and operations within Amazon sales 6 teams” and “relate to Amazon’s strategies for 7 recruiting third-party sellers,” for which 8 “Amazon actively competes with other 9 companies.” See ECF No. 28-197. The 10 Catana Declaration further indicates that “[i]f these 11 details became public, Amazon, could lose its %L competitive advantage because competitors could 13 use these insights to adjust their own strategies and operations to adopt Amazon’s strategies.” See 15 id. || 1. ORDER

= 17 Based on the above reasoning, Defendants’ administrative motion is GRANTED.

Z 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: March 21, 2022 kom Lh ham tn) 21 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28