Barnes v. The Coca-Cola Co.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Keith Barnes, No. 1:22-cv-01511-KJM-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. The Coca-Cola Company, 1S Defendant. 16 17 In a previous order, the court ordered defendant The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) to 18 | show cause why its Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, Requests to Seal, ECF Nos. 19, 27, and 19 | related documents, ECF Nos. 20, 28, should not be fully unsealed. Order (Apr. 7, 2025) at 12, 20 | ECF No. 40. Coca-Cola responded to the court’s order and requests all sealed documents remain 21 | under seal. Response, ECF No. 41. In support of its request, Coca-Cola makes three primary 22 | arguments: 1) another judge in this district previously allowed it to file the aforementioned 23 | documents under seal; 2) another judge in the Southern District of Florida previously determined 24 | that good cause existed to seal that district’s Report and Recommendation, which Coca-Cola cites 25 | to in these documents; and 3) good cause exists to maintain the documents under seal because 26 | they contain proprietary information that would harm Coca-Cola if released to the public. /d. 27 | 44 3-4, 8.

1 I. ANALYSIS 2 As explained in the court’s previous order, “the courts of this country recognize a general 3 right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 4 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 25 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). 5 Although that right is not absolute, “‘a strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting 6 point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 7 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 8 The court begins with the currently sealed Requests to Seal at ECF Nos. 19 and 27. The 9 Local Rules of this District establish a general presumption that requests to seal be made on the 10 public docket: “Notice that a request to seal has been made will typically be filed in the publicly 11 available case file.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). In turn, orders on sealing requests should also be 12 “file[d] in the publicly available case file.” Id. L.R. 141(d). Here, the court does not find any 13 reason to deviate from the local rules. The Requests to Seal provide notice of the requests to seal 14 and explain the legal standard applicable to sealing in this district and do not themselves reveal 15 any proprietary information. Indeed, the contents of the filings at ECF Nos. 19 and 27 closely 16 mirror the public Response at ECF No. 41 currently before the court. While another judge of this 17 district previously ordered the Requests to be sealed, it is well established that a court may, in its 18 discretion, unseal those same, previously sealed filings. Id. L.R. 141(e)(2)(iii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 5.2; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. Finding no good cause to maintain the seal on the Requests to 20 Seal at ECF Nos. 19 and 27, the court orders these filings be unsealed. 21 The court next proceeds to the currently sealed Exhibit B at ECF No. 20, which includes 22 the Report and Recommendation from the Southern District of Florida in Spaner v. The Coca- 23 Cola Co. Case No. 19-22210 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2022), report and recommendation adopted in 24 full (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2022). Coca-Cola asserts the filing should remain under seal in this 25 district because the same Report and Recommendation remains sealed in its district of origin, 26 though it provides no documentation to support this assertion. After conducting independent 27 research, this court has confirmed both that the Report and Recommendation remains sealed in 28 the Southern District of Florica and that the Spaner court permitted Coca-Cola to file the Report 1 | and Recommendation under seal in this district upon Coca-Cola’s unopposed request. Spaner, 2 | Case No. 19-22210 (S.D. Fla.), ECF Nos. 180-81. While this court may have made a different 3 | decision in the first instance in response to Coca-Cola’s request to seal, in the interests of comity, 4 | it accepts for these purposes the conclusion of the district court in Spaner. Exhibit B containing 5 | the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 20 shall remain under seal. 6 Finally, the court addresses Coca-Cola’s sealed Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18, and 7 | Reply, ECF No. 28. Redacted copies of these filings are currently available on the public docket. 8 | See Motion to Dismiss (redacted), ECF No. 21; Reply (redacted), ECF No. 26. The redacted 9 | portions of these filings relate to the substance of the Spaner court’s sealed Report and 10 | Recommendation. Given the status of that document in the underlying Florida case, this court 11 | finds good cause for the unredacted versions of the Motion to Dismiss and Reply to remain 12 | under seal. 13 | II. CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the clerk of court is directed to unseal Coca-Cola’s Requests 15 | to Seal at ECF Nos. 19 and 27. 16 All other sealed filings shall remain under seal until further notice. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: April 24, 2025. □□□ 19 = A... — STATES DISTRICT JUDGE