Day v. GEICO Casualty Company

Opinion

1 2 6 7 JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., [Re: ECF No. 154, 160] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 14 Material Should Be Sealed, ECF No. 154, and Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under 15 Seal, ECF No. 160. The motions seek to file under seal documents in support Plaintiff’s Motion 16 to Modify Class Definition and Defendants’ Response. ECF Nos. 155, 159. For the reasons 17 stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Defendants’ motion is 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 24 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 25 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 26 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 27 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 1 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 2 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 3 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 4 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 6 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 7 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 8 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 9 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 10 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 11 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 12 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 13 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 14 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 15 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 16 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 18 The Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies because Plaintiff’s Motion 19 to Modify Class Definition is more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. See 20 Maldonado v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04067-WHO, 2021 WL 134579, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 21 2021) (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a motion to seal documents related to a 22 motion to modify class definition). 23 A. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed (ECF No. 154) 24 On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another 25 Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, identifying portions of her Motion to Modify Class Definition 26 and its supporting exhibits that contain information that Defendants have designated as 27 confidential. ECF No. 154. As of the date of this Order, Defendants have not filed a statement 1 and/or declaration under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or 2 declaration is a basis for denial. See Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 17-CV-04405- 3 HSG, 2022 WL 1131725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (denying motions to consider whether 4 another party’s material should be sealed because the designating party failed to comply with Civ. 5 L.R. 79-5(f)(3)). 6 Thus, the Court rules as follows:

7 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 8 154-4 Plaintiff’s Motion to Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply Modify Class Definition Portions with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 9 154-6 Declaration of Robert L. Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply Schug Portions with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 10 154-8 Declaration of Matthew Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply H. Morgan Portions with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 11 154-9 Declaration of Allan Entire Document DENIED, as failing to comply 12 Schwartz with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 13 The denial as to Plaintiff’s motion and these exhibits is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants 14 filing a statement and/or declaration under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Defendants shall do so within 10 15 days of this Order. 16 B. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 160) 17 Defendants seek to file portions of their Response and certain exhibits in support that 18 Response under seal because they contain internal and confidential financial information related to 19 GEICO’s operations in California. ECF No. 160 at 4. 20 The “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information, including 21 financial records, that would harm a party’s competitive standing. See Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine 22 Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878-HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding 23 compelling reasons for “confidential business and proprietary information relating to the 24 operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-cv- 25 00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for 26 “information that, if published, may harm [a party’s] or third parties’ competitive standing and 27 divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, 1 harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). 2 The Court finds that Defendants have met the “compelling reasons” standard because the 3 release of non-public financial information related to GEICO’s operations in California threatens 4 GEICO’s competitive interests. See Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569. The Court is also satisfied 5 that Defendants’ request is narrowly tailored to only the sealable material. 6 The Court rules as follows:

7 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 8 160-3 Defendants’ Response Highlighted GRANTED, as containing Portions information related to GEICO’s 9 internal financial results and sensitive proprietary business 10 issues. 160-4 Declaration of Damon N. Highlighted GRANTED, as containing 11 Vocke Portions information related to GEICO’s 12 internal financial results and sensitive proprietary business 13 issues. 160-5 Excerpts of the Deposition Highlighted GRANTED, as containing 14 of Russell Ward Portions information related to GEICO’s internal financial results and 15 sensitive proprietary business 16 issues. 160-6 GEICO’s Profit and Loss Highlighted GRANTED, as containing 17 Statement Portions information related to GEICO’s internal financial results and 18 sensitive proprietary business 19 issues.

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2 || I. ORDER 3 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 5 Should Be Sealed is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ECF No. 154. Defendants 6 may file a statement and/or declaration under Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3) within 10 days of 7 this Order. If Defendants fail to do so, Plaintiff SHALL file unredacted versions of the 8 documents sought to be sealed on the public docket. 9 2. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED. ECF No. 160. 10 11 Dated: August 30, 2023 a (12 hong □ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge © 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28