Day v. GEICO Casualty Company

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 11 Defendants. FILED UNDER SEAL Re: ECF No. 189 On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Jessica Day (“Plaintiff”) filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed regarding the brief and exhibits Plaintiff filed provisionally under seal in support of her opposition to Defendants GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General Insurance Company’s (together, “GEICO” or “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s operative complaint. See Admin. Mot., ECF No. 189. On October 27, 2023, Defendants filed a statement pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) regarding their position on sealing the documents and information at issue.

Defs.’ Statement Re Sealing (“Statement”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 119. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Statement. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion.

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 & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 27 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to documents related to a summary judgment motion. See id. at 1179.

9 In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and 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.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1).

15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff filed 14 documents partially or fully under seal related to her opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, i.e., a redacted version of her opposition brief and Exhibits 1, 3, 5–10, 12–16. Of the 13 exhibits at issue, Defendants (1) state that Exhibit 13 is entirely non-confidential; (2) request that the Court maintain Exhibits 3, 6–8, 10, 12, and 14–16 under seal in their entirety; (3) maintain under seal identified portions of Exhibits 1 and 9; and (4) do not inform the Court of their position regarding Exhibit 5. See Statement 2–5. Defendants have also identified portions of Plaintiff’s provisionally redacted opposition brief that it does not seek to maintain under seal, and other portions that it requests remain under seal. See id. at 2.

24 Plaintiff does not oppose the sealing request. See Admin. Mot. Prop. Order 1, ECF No. 189-2 (proposing the provisionally redacted information remain under seal).

26 The documents and information at issue are deposition transcripts; declarations; internal emails, memoranda, presentations, and reports; and—in Exhibit 12—a petition in a confidential information they seek to maintain under seal consists of non-public, sensitive financial data, as well as competitive business intelligence and strategy discussions. See Statement 2–5.

3 Defendants argue that the disclosure of this information would give competitors an unfair advantage and hurt GEICO’s business strategy. With respect to Exhibit 12, Defendants argue that the document was filed in a confidential proceeding before the CDI, and that it should remain confidential “[f]or the sake of the integrity of future such [confidential] proceedings, especially ones that lead to confidential settlements.” See id. at 4.

8 Courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); see also, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy,” including confidential contract terms); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc., No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing request under compelling reasons standard of “confidential business development and internal business strategy documents and intellectual property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research and development information”); Zogenix, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3908529, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2022) (granting request to seal “internal conversations” about corporate “decision- making process” in connection with summary judgment motion).

24 Having reviewed Defendants’ arguments, the relevant case law, and the documents at issue, the Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons to seal the requested portions of Exhibits 1, 3, 6–10, and 14–16. See In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569; Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *1. The Court additionally finds that the confidential nature of the filed in that proceeding, i.e., Exhibit 12. Further, the Court further finds Defendants’ requests to be narrowly tailored. However, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown compelling reasons to seal Exhibit 5, which is not included in Defendants’ Statement.

4 The Court's rulings on the documents at issue are set forth in the table below. For clarity, the Court notes that “GRANT” will maintain sealing.

Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Reasoning Provisionally Requests be Ruling 7 Sealed Maintained Under Seal Plaintiff’s 2:25–3:6; 4:9–19 GRANTED. Contains confidential 9 Opposition to 3:21–4:6; 9:18–19 financial information GEICO’s 4:9–19; 23:2–9 and California- Motion 5:5–22; specific rate 11 for Summary 6:16–18; information, Judgment 9:18–19; disclosure of which 12 11:15–17; would give GEICO’s 19:14–17; competitors an unfair 23:2–9; advantage.

24:1–2.

15 2 Ex. 1 to Hackman Hackman GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of Deposition: Deposition: financial information 16 R. Schug 80:1–4; No sealing and California- 82:2–9. requested. specific rate information, 18 Rinella Deposition: Rinella Deposition: disclosure of which 14:1–5; 37:13–17; would give GEICO’s 19 37:13–17; 52:19–20. competitors an unfair 52:19–20. advantage.

20 Ward Deposition: Ward Deposition: 80:16–22; 31:8–33:22; 85:1–22; 22 36:11–38:3; 87:6–22; 39:3–22; 126:13–129:22.

23 41:8–42:21; 80:16–22; Watkins 24 85:1–22; Deposition: 87:6–22; No sealing 126:13–129:22. requested.

Watkins 27 Deposition: Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Reasoning Provisionally Requests be Ruling 2 Sealed Maintained Under Seal Ex. 3 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential 4 Declaration of information regarding R. Schug GEICO’s competitive business intelligence 6 and strategy, disclosure of which 7 would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair 8 advantage.

10 4 Ex. 5 to Entire document. N/A. Not included DENIED Defendants did not Declaration of in Statement. WITHOUT provide a justification 11 R. Schug PREJUDICE. for maintaining Exhibit 5 under seal.

Defendants shall submit a statement regarding their 14 position on maintaining some or 15 all of Exhibit 5 under seal within five days of the entry of this 17 order.

18 5 Ex. 6 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of information regarding 19 R. Schug GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, 21 disclosure of which would give GEICO’s 22 competitors an unfair advantage.

23 6 Ex. 7 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of information regarding R. Schug GEICO’s competitive 25 business intelligence and strategy, as well 26 as internal figures, disclosure of which 27 would give GEICO’s Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Reasoning Provisionally Requests be Ruling 2 Sealed Maintained Under Seal advantage.

4 7 Ex. 8 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of financial information, R. Schug disclosure of which 6 would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair 7 advantage.

8 Ex. 9 to Redacted portion of Redacted portion of GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of ¶ 73. ¶ 73. financial information, R. Schug disclosure of which would give GEICO’s 10 competitors an unfair advantage.

11 9 Ex. 10 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of financial information, R. Schug disclosure of which 13 would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair 14 advantage.

10 Ex. 12 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Document was filed 15 Declaration of in a confidential R. Schug proceeding before the CDI.

17 11 Ex. 13 to Entire document. No request to seal. GRANTED, GEICO does not seek Declaration of so that to maintain the 18 R. Schug Exhibit 13 document under seal. will be 19 unsealed.

20 12 Ex. 14 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of information regarding 21 R. Schug GEICO’s competitive business intelligence 22 and strategy, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s 24 competitors an unfair advantage.

25 13 Ex. 15 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential Declaration of information regarding 26 R. Schug GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, 1 Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Reasoning Provisionally Requests be Ruling 2 Sealed Maintained Under Seal would give GEICO’s 4 competitors an unfair 5 advantage.

14 Ex. 16 to Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential 6 Declaration of information regarding R. Schug GEICO’s competitive 7 business intelligence and strategy, 8 . . disclosure of which 9 would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair 10 advantage.

11 Il. ORDER 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that: & 13 1. GEICO may file a renewed motion to maintain under seal Exhibit 5 to the 14 Declaration of R. Schug. Any such motion must be filed by December 7, 2023, and © 15 may not exceed three pages in length.

A 16 2. Plaintiff shall file on the public docket her opposition brief and Exhibit 1, both

3 17 redacted in compliance with this order, as well as an unredacted version of Exhibit 12 13, by December 11, 2023.

19 3. If GEICO does not timely file a renewed motion to maintain Exhibit 5 under seal, 20 Plaintiff shall additionally file an unredacted version of Exhibit 5 by December 11, 2] 2023.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

94 || Dated: December 5, 2023 26 feiinfaecian, eth Labson Freeman 27 United States District Judge