Day v. GEICO Casualty Company

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 77, 100] 11 Defendants.

13 Before the Court are two administrative motions filed by Plaintiff Jessica Day. The first is an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in conjunction with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 77. The second is an administrative motion to file under seal an exhibit to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 100. The Court has considered the motions and supporting declarations. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions to seal these materials are GRANTED.

20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “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 24 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments 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, 1101–102 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”

7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2).

8 Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1)].” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must do so no later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.”

16 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

17 II. DISCUSSION 18 This Court previously determined “that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification.” Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, 2020 WL 20 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020).

21 A. Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in 22 Conjunction with Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 23 Plaintiff moves for the Court to consider filing the identified information under seal because it contains information originally produced by Defendants that was marked “Confidential — Subject to Protective Order” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, as modified. See ECF No. 77 at 1–2 (referencing ECF No. 76, Stipulated Protective Order, as modified). Defendant GEICO does not oppose this request. See ECF No. 99. GEICO also clarified the confidential ECF No. 99 at 2–3. This response indicated that some of the documents that Plaintiff requested this Court to consider filing under seal were either not confidential or that there existed less restrictive alternatives. See id. GEICO did agree that filing under seal was merited for certain documents identified in Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF 99 at 2–3 (responding to ECF No. 77). This subset of information contains non-public, confidential financial information about GEICO’s operations in California. See id. The Court finds that this has met the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing financial information about its operations in California because release of the information threatens its competitive interests. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 2020 9 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017).

11 B. Motion to File Under Seal an Exhibit to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s 12 Motion for Class Certification 13 Plaintiff seeks to file portions of an exhibit to its Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification under seal because it contains information taken directly from a Declaration filed by GEICO (ECF No. 93-2), which was already ordered sealed by this Court. See ECF Nos. 97, 100.

16 GEICO has filed a response to this request pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). See ECF No. 103. In this response, GEICO indicated that they do not oppose the Plaintiff’s request to file under seal. Id. 19 The Court notes that this request to file under seal pertains exclusively to information already sealed by this Court. See ECF No. 97. As indicated in the prior order, the Court finds that the material that Plaintiff seeks to seal includes non-public, confidential financial information about GEICO’s operations in California. See id; see also ECF No. 95 at 1. The Court finds that this has met the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing financial information about its operations in California because release of the information threatens its competitive interests. See Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *2; In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2.

26 C. Designation of Information to be Filed Under Seal 27 The Court rules as follows on the documents the parties seek to have sealed: ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 78 Plaintiff’s Motion and 5:6–13. See ECF No. 99 GRANTED, as 2 Memorandum in Support at 2. containing information of Class Certification related to GEICO’s 3 internal financial results and sensitive proprietary 4 business issues.

78-1 Summary Exhibit Portions identified by GRANTED, as 6 Prepared by GEICO GEICO in its Statement containing information (GEICO_DAY_024947 in Response to Plaintiff’s related to GEICO’s – 024949) Motion to File Under internal financial results Seal. See ECF No. 99 at and sensitive proprietary (CA-specific figures). business issues.

78-1 Excerpts of the Fed. R. 80:1–4, 82:2–9. See ECF GRANTED, as Civ. P. 30(b)(6) No. 99 at 2. containing information 11 Deposition Transcript of related to GEICO’s BJ Hackman in Thomas, internal financial results 12 et al. v. GEICO Casualty and sensitive proprietary Company, et al. (N.D. business issues.

13 Ill.) 14 78-1 Expert Report and ¶ 32, Apps. D & E. See GRANTED, as Appendices of Allen ECF No. 99 at 2–3. containing information 15 Schwartz related to GEICO’s internal financial results and sensitive proprietary 17 business issues.

18 78-1 Email (GEICO-031062) Entire email. See ECF GRANTED, as No. 99 at 3. containing information related to GEICO’s 20 internal financial results and sensitive proprietary 21 business issues.

101-1 Plaintiff’s Reply in Redacted portion of ¶ 73 GRANTED, as 23 Support of Plaintiff’s of Exhibit 17. See ECF containing information Motion for Class No. 103 at 2. related to GEICO’s 24 Certification internal financial results and sensitive proprietary business issues.

27 III. ORDER GRANTED.

3 || Dated: September 28, 2022 kom Lh han tn) ‘ [SAV TALMW MAMAN BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge a 12

©

Z 18