Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all ORDER aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

----oo0oo---- Plaintiffs request to seal certain exhibits to their motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. (Docket No. 361.) These exhibits are defendant Charter’s sales commission plan for account executives and accompanying attachments.1 (Docket Nos. 360-10 to While plaintiffs move to seal, the documents originated -12.)

2 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party seeks to seal an attachment related to a dispositive pleading, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The court then must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.

13 Charter seeks to have these exhibits sealed because (1) Charter has designated them as Confidential; (2) Charter contends that they contain confidential, personal, and proprietary information; (3) Charter has maintained them as confidential pursuant to their regular business practices; and (4) Charter contends that there is no clear public interest in publicly disclosing the information therein. (Docket No. 361 at 1.)

20 The court is unpersuaded. The parties point to nothing in their entirely conclusory pleadings on this motion to suggest that confidentiality would outweigh the public’s strong interest in an open court process -- all the stronger when documents bear on a dispositive pleading. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

25 As this court has previously pointed out to these same litigants, a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents. (See Docket No. 110.) See also Feb. 5, 2016 Order at 3, Wilson v. Conair nee enn nee nn ne nnn nnn nn EO I SII ED OE Corp., Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00894; Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152.

6 The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.

8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to seal (Docket No. 361) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 10 prejudice to the parties submitting a more tailored request, such 11 as redacting specific portions of these exhibits, which states 12 with particularity the basis for redacting or sealing the 13 documents and why defendant’s harm absent such measures would 14 outweigh public policies favoring disclosure.?

15 Dated: February 9, 2024 16 oh blew. WV fh. beE— WILLIAM B. SHUBB 1" UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 2 Before so doing, the parties are directed to carefully review the grounds on which the court denied the previous request || to seal. (See Docket No. 110.)