Cittadino v. BrandSafway Services, LLC

Opinion

----oo0oo---- SULLIVAN CITTADINO, an No. 2:23-cv-00322 WBS JDP individual, Plaintiff, v. BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES, LLC; BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC; SAFWAY GROUP HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. ----oo0oo---- Defendants request to file under seal three employment- related agreements between the parties: (1) an Equity and Related Arrangements agreement, (2) a Management Incentive Compensation Plan, and (3) a Delegation of Authority agreement. (See Docket No. 43.) 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). 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 (citation omitted); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098- 99 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the compelling reasons standard should apply to all motions which are correlated to the underlying cause of action). In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Kamakana, 477 F.3d at 1179. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that an example of a compelling reason for sealing records includes “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 539, 598 (1978)). Defendants’ request states only that “the Documents contain commercially sensitive or private financial information and highly confidential company procedures and BrandSafway would be harmed if this information were generally known.” (Docket No. 43 at 2.) This boilerplate statement alone does not outweigh the history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public. A party must still “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “Simply mentioning a category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, eee ene IE I ORI IID INO IERIE OSI OD

does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. Defendants provide no further guidance as to what type of sensitive information these documents contain that would merit an order sealing the documents from public view. Therefore, the court must deny defendants’ request to seal. The court will consider a more tailored request which identifies the specific information to be redacted or sealed and articulates the bases for redacting or sealing such information. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ request to seal (Docket No. 43) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. bette Hh. (hi. Dated: October 8, 2024 WILLIAMB SHUBB.....—T UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE