Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2022
• Docket: 5:20-cv-08250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 EDWARD SCOTT GAU, et al., Case No. 20-cv-08250-SVK

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTIONS AND 6 v. STIPULATION TO FILE MATERIALS UNDER SEAL 7 HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 60, 61 8 Defendant. 9 10 Before the Court are two administrative motions and a stipulation seeking to file under seal 11 materials associated with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and the opposition to that 12 motion. Dkt. 54, 60, 61; see also Dkt. 55. 13 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 14 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 15 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 16 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 17 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 18 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 19 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 20 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 21 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 22 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 23 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 24 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 25 Rule 79-5. 26 Whether the “compelling reasons” or “good cause” standard applies on the context of a 27 motion for class certification depends on whether the motion is “effectively dispositive” of the 1 case. In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018). The Court need not decide 2 whether the “compelling reasons” or “good cause” standard applies here because the materials for 3 which the Court grants the motion to seal meet either standard. Accordingly, having considered 4 the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, the Court ORDERS as 5 follows: 6 1. Motion to Seal at Dkt. 54 7 Document Court’s Ruling on Motion to Reasons for Court’s Ruling 8 Seal 9 Ex. D to Appendix of DENIED without prejudice. • Plaintiff’s Evidence in Support of If the material sought to be administrative motion 10 Plaintiff’s Motion for Class sealed meets the applicable to consider whether Certification legal standards, Hillstone may another party’s motion 11 file a renewed motion to seal to be sealed (Dkt. 54) that complies with Civil L.R. sought sealing of 12 79-5 no later than April 8, Exhibit D, which are 13 2022. In addition to meeting excerpts of testimony the other requirements of and exhibits from the 14 Civil L.R. 79-5, any renewed Rule 30(b)(6) motion to seal must include deposition of 15 for the Court’s consideration Defendant. However, the redacted and highlighted Plaintiff filed Exhibit 16 unredacted versions of Ex. D D in the public record 17 required Civil L.R. 79-5(e). (see Dkt. 53 at Ex. D) not as an attachment to 18 the motion to seal (see Dkt. 54-1). 19 • The declaration filed 20 by Hillstone in support of Plaintiff’s motion to 21 seal (Dkt. 55) fails to comply with Civil L.R. 22 79-5(c)(1) and (f)(3) because it does not 23 identify the “portions” 24 of Ex. D Hillstone seeks to seal, does not 25 address the relevant legal standards or 26 reasons for keeping the document under seal, 27 and does not include the required proposed 1 order. 2 • Neither party provided the redacted and 3 highlighted unredacted versions of Ex. D, as 4 required in Civil L.R. 79-5(e). 5 Deposition Ex. 19 GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be 6 document sealed contains confidential and proprietary business 7 information, compensation information, policies, 8 evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business 9 practices. Disclosure of the 10 information may cause competitive harm to 11 Defendant. Deposition Ex. 28 GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be 12 document sealed contains confidential 13 and proprietary business information, compensation 14 information, policies, evaluation procedures, and 15 descriptions of business practices. Disclosure of the 16 information may cause 17 competitive harm to Defendant. 18 Deposition Ex. 32 GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be document sealed contains confidential 19 and proprietary business information, compensation 20 information, policies, 21 evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business 22 practices. Disclosure of the information may cause 23 competitive harm to Defendant. 24 Deposition Ex. 33 GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be 25 document sealed contains confidential and proprietary business 26 information, compensation information, policies, 27 evaluation procedures, and practices. Disclosure of the 1 information may cause 2 competitive harm to Defendant. 3 Deposition Ex. 35 GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be document sealed contains confidential 4 and proprietary business information, compensation 5 information, policies, 6 evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business 7 practices. Disclosure of the information may cause 8 competitive harm to Defendant. 9

10 2. Motion to Seal at Dkt. 60 11 Document Court’s Ruling on Motion to Reasons for Court’s Ruling 12 Seal 13 Exhibit 31 to the John GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be Reynolds Declaration document. sealed contains confidential 14 and proprietary business information, compensation 15 information, policies, 16 evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business 17 practices. Disclosure of the information may cause 18 competitive harm to Defendant. 19 Exhibit 36 to the John GRANTED as to entire The information sought to be 20 Reynolds Declaration document. sealed contains confidential and proprietary business 21 information, compensation information, policies, 22 evaluation procedures, and 23 descriptions of business practices. Disclosure of the 24 information may cause competitive harm to 25 Defendant. 26 27 3. Stipulation re Administrative Motion to Seal at Dkt. 60 1 administrative motions to seal certain of the documents that are the subject of the stipulation, the 2 stipulation is moot. In addition, the stipulation is not appropriate because the applicable legal 3 standards must be met before material may be filed under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 4 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents is 5 not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Jd. 6 The Parties are directed to follow Civil L.R. 79-5 in connection with any future 7 administrative motions to seal. 8 SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: March 31, 2022 10 Sum vel SUSAN VAN KEULEN 12 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16

= 17

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