ERICA FRASCO, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.
A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open court. In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 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.” In re Google 1 This order addresses a slew of motions to seal portions of discovery letters. Dkt. Nos. 199, 2 219, 224, 229, 280, 283, 290, 299, 301, 307, 309. The Court’s sealing determinations are stated in 3 the attached chart. See Ex. A. 4 Many of the sealing requests are tethered to filings that refer to information contained in 5 documents designated as confidential under a stipulated protective order. As stated above, that is 6 not enough to warrant sealing. Otherwise, the parties offer perfunctory claims that the discovery 7 letters and underlying documents contain confidential information which should be shielded from 8 public view. For example, Flo says that certain references in a discovery dispute letter “implicate 9 trade secrets .. . including Flo’s technical information, as well as its efforts to understand the 10 market, improve the Flo App, successfully attract new users, and maintain current users.” Dkt. 11 No. 309-1 46. Flo states, in conclusory fashion, that disclosure of the information “could 12 undermine Flo’s competitive posture.” Jd. “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, 13 which for example do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair 14 advantage, are insufficient for sealing.” DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 75734, at *1. 3 15 The “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for the documents, or portions thereof, 16 that the Court declines to seal. In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting 3 17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant 18 documents on ECF within 7 days of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(g). 20 Dated: August 8, 2023 21 22 73 JAMEYDONATO Unitedf tates District Judge 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ERICA FRASCO, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.
A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open court. In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 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.” In re Google 1 This order addresses a slew of motions to seal portions of discovery letters. Dkt. Nos. 199, 2 219, 224, 229, 280, 283, 290, 299, 301, 307, 309. The Court’s sealing determinations are stated in 3 the attached chart. See Ex. A. 4 Many of the sealing requests are tethered to filings that refer to information contained in 5 documents designated as confidential under a stipulated protective order. As stated above, that is 6 not enough to warrant sealing. Otherwise, the parties offer perfunctory claims that the discovery 7 letters and underlying documents contain confidential information which should be shielded from 8 public view. For example, Flo says that certain references in a discovery dispute letter “implicate 9 trade secrets .. . including Flo’s technical information, as well as its efforts to understand the 10 market, improve the Flo App, successfully attract new users, and maintain current users.” Dkt. 11 No. 309-1 46. Flo states, in conclusory fashion, that disclosure of the information “could 12 undermine Flo’s competitive posture.” Jd. “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, 13 which for example do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair 14 advantage, are insufficient for sealing.” DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 75734, at *1. 3 15 The “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for the documents, or portions thereof, 16 that the Court declines to seal. In re Google Play Store, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1108 (quoting 3 17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182). The parties are directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant 18 documents on ECF within 7 days of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(g). 20 Dated: August 8, 2023 21 22 73 JAMEYDONATO Unitedf tates District Judge 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A to Order re Motions to Seal
Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. Meta did not ask Letter Brief re portions of pages 1- the contents of to seal the letter brief in its Meta’s source 2 documents that Meta response. (See Dkt. No. 201 code, Dkt. No. has designated as ¶ 11) 199-2 confidential or highly confidential during discovery. (See Dkt. No. 199 at ECF p. 4) Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. No further Letter Brief re portions of pages 1- the contents of showing was made by Meta Plaintiffs’ RFP 2 documents that Meta to demonstrate why the Sets 2, 4, 5; has designated as highlighted portions of the Interrogatory confidential during discovery letter should be 4, Dkt. No. discovery. (See Dkt. sealed. 219-2 No. 219 at ECF p. 4) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains descriptions Granted. Motion for a portions of pages 1, of portions of the Protective 8 deposition of plaintiff Order, Dkt. Gamino that concern No. 224-2 her own personal, highly sensitive and/or health information. (See Dkt. No. 224 at ECF p. 4) Flo’s Response Highlighted Contains references to, Granted. to Plaintiffs’ portions of pages 1- or quotations from, Sealing 3 material that plaintiffs Motion, Dkt. sought to seal at Dkt. No. 229-1 No. 224. (See Dkt. No. 229 at 1) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Request for portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Meta Permission to from, materials that to demonstrate why the File a Meta has designated as highlighted portions of the Discovery confidential during request should be sealed. Dispute Letter, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 280-2 No. 280-1 ¶ 6) Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing Flo’s Request Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further for Permission portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by to File a from, materials that plaintiffs to demonstrate Discovery plaintiffs have why the highlighted Dispute Letter, designated as portions of the request Dkt. No. 283-2 confidential during should be sealed. discovery. (See Dkt. No. 283 at 1) Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Request for portions of pages 1 and information taken showing was made by Flo Permission to and 2 from, materials that Flo to demonstrate why the File a Motion has designated as highlighted portions of the to Compel, confidential during request should be sealed. Dkt. No. 290-2 discovery. (See Dkt. No. 290-1 ¶ 6) Exhibit A to Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Plaintiffs’ portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Flo Request for from, materials that Flo to demonstrate why the Permission to has designated as highlighted portions of the File a Motion confidential during request should be sealed. to Compel, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 290-3 No. 290-1 ¶ 6) Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Letter Brief re portions of pages 2 and information taken showing was made by Flo Class and 3 from, materials that Flo or Meta to demonstrate why Members’ Use and Meta have the highlighted portions of of the Flo App, designated as the discovery letter should Dkt. No. 299-2 confidential during be sealed. (See also ruling discovery. (See Dkt. re Dkt. No. 307-3) No. 299-1 ¶ 6) Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Letter Brief re portions of pages 1- and information taken showing was made by Flo Deposition of 3 from, materials that Flo to demonstrate why the Roman and Meta have highlighted portions of the Bugaev, Dkt. designated as discovery letter should be No. 301-3 confidential during sealed. (See also ruling re discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 309-3) No. 301-1 ¶ 6) Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing Responsive Highlighted Includes information Denied. Flo offered Letter Brief re portions of page 2 “that implicates trade nothing more than Class secrets -- which could perfunctory claims in Members’ Use undermine Flo’s support of its sealing of the Flo App, competitive posture if request, and has not Dkt. No. 307-3 disclosed -- including adequately explained how Flo’s technical disclosure of this material information, as well as would cause competitive its efforts to understand harm. the market, improve the Flo App, successfully attract new users, and maintain current users.” (Dkt. No. 307-1 ¶ 2) Responsive Highlighted Includes information Denied. Again, Flo offered Letter Brief re portions of pages 2- “that implicates trade nothing more than Deposition of 3 secrets -- which could perfunctory claims in Roman undermine Flo’s support of its sealing Bugaev, Dkt. competitive posture if request, and has not No. 309-3 disclosed -- including adequately explained how Flo’s technical disclosure of this material information, as well as would cause competitive its efforts to understand harm. the market, improve the Flo App, successfully attract new users, and maintain current users.” (Dkt. No. 309-1 ¶ 6)