Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 22, 2022·No. 3:19-cv-03309·Unknown

Opinion

SARAH BUMPUS, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v.

(F/K/A NRT LLC), et al., Defendants.

The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted)). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiffs filed a sealing motion in connection with their summary judgment motion. Dkt. Mojo, and third parties WAVV Communications and PhoneBurner. Realogy filed two sealing motions in connection with its summary judgment motion and Daubert motions. Dkt. Nos. 207, 208. Realogy’s first motion was unopposed and proposes sealing documents that were produced by Realogy itself. See Dkt. No. 207. Realogy’s second motion proposes sealing documents produced by plaintiffs, Mojo, WAVV, and PhoneBurner. As required by Civil Local Rule 79-5, plaintiffs and Realogy filed the initial notice of sealing for documents obtained during discovery that had been designated as confidential under the protective order entered in this case. See Dkt. No. 200-1; Dkt. No. 208-1. Civil Local Rule 79-5 required the parties that produced the documents to state why they should be sealed, and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. Plaintiffs and Realogy filed declarations to state why the documents they produced should be sealed. Dkt. Nos. 214, 215. Mojo filed a declaration to state why the documents in plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Dkt. No. 200, should be sealed, but failed to file a declaration to state why the documents in Realogy’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 208, should be sealed. See Dkt. No. 213. WAVV Communications and PhoneBurner did not file declarations stating why the documents they produced should be sealed. Consequently, the only reason proffered for sealing WAVV and PhoneBurner’s documents, and some of Mojo’s documents, is that they were labeled as confidential during document production. This does not carry the burden of establishing grounds for sealing. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107. For the documents in plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Mojo said only that the documents it produced contained commercially sensitive information. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 213 ¶ 4. This wholly conclusory characterization also is not enough to warrant sealing. For its part, Realogy says that its documents are commercially sensitive and disclosure of the documents would provide competitors with an unfair advantage. Dkt. No. 214. The Court finds that Realogy has met its burden for a small subset of the sealing requests, and the Court’s rulings are stated in the attached chart. See Ex. A. The Court grants sealing for documents containing the names and addresses of Realogy’s contractors, who are not parties to this suit and 1 for Realogy’s independent contractor agreements, which include information about compensation 2 structure and other details of Realogy’s relationship with its independent contractors. The Court 3 declines to seal Realogy’s training materials and Do Not Call Policies, because Realogy fails to 4 demonstrate a plausible risk to its business from disclosure of those documents. 5 As for plaintiffs, they adequately showed that their documents contained sensitive personal 6 information and call records. Dkt. No. 215-1 □□ 7-8. Plaintiffs also demonstrated that one of their 7 documents contained confidential business information of Class Experts Group, the company 8 owned by plaintiffs’ expert witness, that included information about the company’s relationship 9 with LexisNexis. 10 The “default posture of public access prevails” for the documents that the Court declines to 11 seal. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107 (quoting Kamakana, 12 447 F.3d at 1182). Plaintiffs and Realogy are directed to file unredacted versions of the 13 documents on ECF within 7 days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: August 22, 2022 16

MY JAMES JPONATO Z 18 United ftates District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp. (Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)