1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERICA FRASCO, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9
10 FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants. 11
12 A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court 13 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re 14 Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access 15 maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity 16 and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open 17 court. 18 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 19 exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the 20 public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is 21 required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported 22 by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive 23 motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ 24 Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 25 General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good 26 cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as 27 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, 5 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). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 1
2 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling 3 sought to be sealed Sealing 4 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. Meta did not ask 5 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 6 code, Dkt. No. has designated as ¶ 11) 199-2 confidential or highly 7 confidential during discovery. (See Dkt. 8 No. 199 at ECF p. 4) 9 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. No further 10 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 11 Sets 2, 4, 5; has designated as highlighted portions of the Interrogatory confidential during discovery letter should be 12 4, Dkt. No. discovery. (See Dkt. sealed. 219-2 No. 219 at ECF p. 4) 13 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains descriptions Granted. 14 Motion for a portions of pages 1, of portions of the 15 Protective 8 deposition of plaintiff Order, Dkt. Gamino that concern 16 No. 224-2 her own personal, highly sensitive and/or 17 health information. 18 (See Dkt. No. 224 at ECF p. 4) 19 Flo’s Response Highlighted Contains references to, Granted. 20 to Plaintiffs’ portions of pages 1- or quotations from, Sealing 3 material that plaintiffs 21 Motion, Dkt. sought to seal at Dkt. No. 229-1 No. 224. (See Dkt. No. 22 229 at 1) 23 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 24 Request for portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Meta Permission to from, materials that to demonstrate why the 25 File a Meta has designated as highlighted portions of the Discovery confidential during request should be sealed. 26 Dispute Letter, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 280-2 No. 280-1 ¶ 6) 27 1 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing 2 Flo’s Request Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 3 for Permission portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by to File a from, materials that plaintiffs to demonstrate 4 Discovery plaintiffs have why the highlighted 5 Dispute Letter, designated as portions of the request Dkt. No. 283-2 confidential during should be sealed. 6 discovery. (See Dkt. No. 283 at 1) 7 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 8 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 9 File a Motion has designated as highlighted portions of the 10 to Compel, confidential during request should be sealed. Dkt. No. 290-2 discovery. (See Dkt. 11 No. 290-1 ¶ 6) 12 Exhibit A to Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Plaintiffs’ portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Flo 13 Request for from, materials that Flo to demonstrate why the Permission to has designated as highlighted portions of the 14 File a Motion confidential during request should be sealed. 15 to Compel, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 290-3 No. 290-1 ¶ 6) 16 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 17 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 18 Members’ Use and Meta have the highlighted portions of 19 of the Flo App, designated as the discovery letter should Dkt. No. 299-2 confidential during be sealed. (See also ruling 20 discovery. (See Dkt. re Dkt. No. 307-3) No. 299-1 ¶ 6) 21 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 22 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 23 Roman and Meta have highlighted portions of the 24 Bugaev, Dkt. designated as discovery letter should be No. 301-3 confidential during sealed. (See also ruling re 25 discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 309-3) No. 301-1 ¶ 6) 26 27 1 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing 2 Responsive Highlighted Includes information Denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERICA FRASCO, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 9
10 FLO HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants. 11
12 A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court 13 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re 14 Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access 15 maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity 16 and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open 17 court. 18 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 19 exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the 20 public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is 21 required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported 22 by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive 23 motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ 24 Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 25 General assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good 26 cause for sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as 27 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, 5 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). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 1
2 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling 3 sought to be sealed Sealing 4 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. Meta did not ask 5 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 6 code, Dkt. No. has designated as ¶ 11) 199-2 confidential or highly 7 confidential during discovery. (See Dkt. 8 No. 199 at ECF p. 4) 9 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to Denied. No further 10 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 11 Sets 2, 4, 5; has designated as highlighted portions of the Interrogatory confidential during discovery letter should be 12 4, Dkt. No. discovery. (See Dkt. sealed. 219-2 No. 219 at ECF p. 4) 13 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains descriptions Granted. 14 Motion for a portions of pages 1, of portions of the 15 Protective 8 deposition of plaintiff Order, Dkt. Gamino that concern 16 No. 224-2 her own personal, highly sensitive and/or 17 health information. 18 (See Dkt. No. 224 at ECF p. 4) 19 Flo’s Response Highlighted Contains references to, Granted. 20 to Plaintiffs’ portions of pages 1- or quotations from, Sealing 3 material that plaintiffs 21 Motion, Dkt. sought to seal at Dkt. No. 229-1 No. 224. (See Dkt. No. 22 229 at 1) 23 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 24 Request for portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Meta Permission to from, materials that to demonstrate why the 25 File a Meta has designated as highlighted portions of the Discovery confidential during request should be sealed. 26 Dispute Letter, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 280-2 No. 280-1 ¶ 6) 27 1 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing 2 Flo’s Request Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 3 for Permission portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by to File a from, materials that plaintiffs to demonstrate 4 Discovery plaintiffs have why the highlighted 5 Dispute Letter, designated as portions of the request Dkt. No. 283-2 confidential during should be sealed. 6 discovery. (See Dkt. No. 283 at 1) 7 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 8 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 9 File a Motion has designated as highlighted portions of the 10 to Compel, confidential during request should be sealed. Dkt. No. 290-2 discovery. (See Dkt. 11 No. 290-1 ¶ 6) 12 Exhibit A to Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further Plaintiffs’ portions of page 1 and information taken showing was made by Flo 13 Request for from, materials that Flo to demonstrate why the Permission to has designated as highlighted portions of the 14 File a Motion confidential during request should be sealed. 15 to Compel, discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 290-3 No. 290-1 ¶ 6) 16 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 17 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 18 Members’ Use and Meta have the highlighted portions of 19 of the Flo App, designated as the discovery letter should Dkt. No. 299-2 confidential during be sealed. (See also ruling 20 discovery. (See Dkt. re Dkt. No. 307-3) No. 299-1 ¶ 6) 21 Discovery Highlighted Contains references to, Denied. No further 22 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 23 Roman and Meta have highlighted portions of the 24 Bugaev, Dkt. designated as discovery letter should be No. 301-3 confidential during sealed. (See also ruling re 25 discovery. (See Dkt. Dkt. No. 309-3) No. 301-1 ¶ 6) 26 27 1 Document Information Proffered Reason for Ruling sought to be sealed Sealing 2 Responsive Highlighted Includes information Denied. Flo offered 3 Letter Brief re portions of page 2 “that implicates trade nothing more than Class secrets -- which could perfunctory claims in 4 Members’ Use undermine Flo’s support of its sealing 5 of the Flo App, competitive posture if request, and has not Dkt. No. 307-3 disclosed -- including adequately explained how 6 Flo’s technical disclosure of this material information, as well as would cause competitive 7 its efforts to understand harm. the market, improve the 8 Flo App, successfully 9 attract new users, and maintain current users.” 10 (Dkt. No. 307-1 ¶ 2) 11 Responsive Highlighted Includes information Denied. Again, Flo offered Letter Brief re portions of pages 2- “that implicates trade nothing more than 12 Deposition of 3 secrets -- which could perfunctory claims in Roman undermine Flo’s support of its sealing 13 Bugaev, Dkt. competitive posture if request, and has not 14 No. 309-3 disclosed -- including adequately explained how Flo’s technical disclosure of this material 15 information, as well as would cause competitive its efforts to understand harm. 16 the market, improve the Flo App, successfully 17 attract new users, and 18 maintain current users.” (Dkt. No. 309-1 ¶ 6) 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27