Bottoms v. Block Inc

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 KIMBERLY BOTTOMS, on behalf of CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01969-MJP herself and all others similarly situated, 11 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 12 v. 13 BLOCK, INC. (F/K/A, SQUARE, 14 INC.) (D/B/A, CASH APP), 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kimberly Bottoms’ Motion to File 18 Confidential Documents Under Seal or in Open Court (Dkt. No. 58.) Having reviewed the 19 motion, Defendant Block, Inc.’s response (Dkt. No. 71), and all supporting materials, the Court 20 GRANTS the Motion IN PART. 21 ANALYSIS 22 Plaintiff seeks to maintain under seal Exhibits 3 and 9 to the Declaration of Jennifer R. 23 Murray, (Dkt. No. 60,) which were filed in support of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s 24 1 Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 61.) The Court first reviews the relevant standard and 2 then discusses the Exhibits. 3 A. Legal Standard 4 Under the “compelling interest” test, which applies here, the Court must “conscientiously

5 balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 6 records secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 7 (citation and quotation omitted). The Court may only seal records if it “base[s] its decision on a 8 compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis 9 or conjecture.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). “The burden is on the party requesting a 10 protective order to demonstrate that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other 11 confidential information within the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an 12 identifiable, significant harm.” Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 13 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation omitted). The Local Rules require the party seeking to 14 keep materials under seal to show: (1) “the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the

15 relief sought”; (2) “the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted”; and (3) “why a 16 less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B). 17 “Evidentiary support from declarations must be provided where necessary.” Id. 18 B. Exhibit 3 19 Exhibit 3 contains excerpts from Defendant’s Amended Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set 20 of Interrogatories, which Block designated confidential. Block, as the designating party, has 21 provided a declaration from Ross Lindly, a Product Manager at Block, Inc., who avers that the 22 information contained in Exhibit 3 includes “the confidential name of a Block database used to 23 store information related to the Cash App Invite Friends program, and the confidential names

24 1 and descriptions of certain fields of data stored in the database.” (Declaration of Ross Lindly 2 (Dkt. No. 72) ¶ 4.) Ross further states that this information is not publicly disclosed, as doing so 3 could endanger Block’s business practices and confidential personal and financial information of 4 Block’s customers. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court is satisfied that there are compelling interests that

5 warrant the information in Exhibit 3 remaining under seal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is 6 GRANTED as to Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 to the Murray Declaration shall remain under seal and the 7 portion of Plaintiff’s response brief which refers to the confidential material shall remain 8 redacted. 9 C. Exhibit 9 10 Exhibit 9 contains excerpts from Defendant’s August 28, 2024, deposition of non-party 11 witness Lisa Cook, which the witness designated as confidential during her examination. As the 12 designee, the onus is on Cook to explain why her testimony should remain sealed. See Local Civ. 13 R. 5(g)(3)(B). Cook has remained silent on the issue, despite being served with the instant 14 Motion and being contacted via phone and email. (Declaration of Eden Nordby (Dkt. No. 59)

15 ¶¶ 6–8.) Defendant takes no position on whether the Cook transcript should remain under seal, 16 (Resp. at 3,) and notes that Cook had previously permitted Defendant to introduce unredacted 17 portions of the same deposition in support of its motion for summary judgment. (See Declaration 18 of Theo Lesczynski (Dkt. No. 73) ¶ 2.) Accordingly, the Court finds there to be no compelling 19 interest in maintaining Exhibit 9 under seal. The Motion is therefore DENIED as to Exhibit 9. 20 CONCLUSION 21 In conclusion, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion. There are compelling interests 22 to maintain Exhibit 3 under seal. The Court is unaware of any compelling interests in 23

24 1 maintaining Exhibit 9 under seal. Therefore, within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff is ORDERED 2 to file the following: 3 1. an unredacted version of Exhibit 9 to the Murray Declaration. (Dkt. No. 60-2.) 4 2. a version of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

5 which (a) maintains the redactions on those portions of the brief discussing 6 confidential information contained in Exhibit 3; but (b) removes the redactions to 7 those portions of the brief discussing information contained in Exhibit 9. 8 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 9 Dated March 11, 2025. A 10 11 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24