1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HASTINGS, Case No. 19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 13 v. RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
15 Defendant. (ECF No. 124)
16 17 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed two applications to maintain the following documents under seal: 23 attorney Gregory Sogoyan’s declaration and exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff’s Reply 24 brief for his motion to amend (Apps. to Seal, ECF Nos. 106) and attorney Dara Tabesh’s 25 unredacted declaration and related exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the 26 motion for summary judgment (App. to Seal, ECF No. 111). The exhibits requested to be 27 sealed can be grouped into two categories: excerpts from Defendant Ford Motor 28 Company’s 2013 Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual (“Warranty Manual”) (Exs. A–C 1 to Sogoyan Decl., ECF No. 107; Exs. A, C–E to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112) and Ford’s 2 Warranty Detail reports for Plaintiff’s repair visits that took place on or after August 1, 3 2018 (Ex. B to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112). 4 On February 15, 2022, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice 5 Plaintiff’s applications to seal. (Order, ECF No. 120.) The Court found that the compelling 6 reasons standard governed and counsel’s declarations did not satisfy the standard. (Id.) 7 The Court required the parties to meet and confer to narrow the scope of documents to be 8 sealed, in compliance with Section 5.B of the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases 9 (“Standing Order”) and ordered Ford to file a response that establishes the compelling 10 reasons to maintain the applicable documents under seal. (Id. at 5–6; Standing Order 11 § 5.B.) The Court advised that if no response is filed to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court 12 may order that the documents be filed in the public record. 13 Ford filed a response to the Court’s Order, arguing that compelling reasons support 14 maintaining the excerpts from its Warranty Manual under seal because the excerpts 15 constitute confidential business information and trade secrets that cannot be disclosed 16 without damaging Ford’s competitive standing. (Ford’s Resp., ECF No. 124.) 17 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 20 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 21 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 22 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 23 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 24 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 25 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 26 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 27 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 28 1 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 2 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 3 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 4 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 5 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 6 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 7 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 8 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 9 the tangential relevance threshold, the lesser, “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see Pintos 10 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “good cause” 11 standard imposes a lower burden than the “compelling reasons” standard). Under either 12 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 13 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 14 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 15 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 16 Under this Court’s Standing Order, “[a] party seeking a sealing order must provide 17 the Court with: (1) a specific description of particular documents or categories of 18 documents to be protected; and (2) declaration(s) showing a compelling reason or good 19 cause to protect those documents from disclosure.” Hon. Cynthia Bashant’s Standing 20 Order for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) § 5.B. “The standard for filing documents under 21 seal will be strictly applied.” Id. Because “[t]here is a presumptive right of public access 22 to court records based upon common law and first amendment grounds,” “[t]he fact that 23 both sides agree to seal a document or that a stipulated protective order was issued is 24 insufficient cause for sealing.” See id. § 5.A. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 A. Warranty Manual 3 Ford argues that compelling reasons support maintaining under seal the four pages 4 of excerpts from the Warranty Manual because they contain Ford’s confidential business 5 policies and procedures governing warranty claims. Compelling reasons may exist if 6 sealing is required to prevent documents from being used “as sources of business 7 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 8 “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the 9 protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 10 information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 11 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 269(c)(1)(G)); see also Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 12 09cv500–WQH–BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, *2 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (finding 13 compelling reasons to seal because “public disclosure of [the defendant]’s confidential 14 business materials . . . could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to 15 replicate [the defendant]’s business practices and circumvent the considerable time and 16 resources necessary in product and marketing development”). 17 Ford attaches a declaration from Jacob Doss, who has worked as Ford’s Zone 18 Manager, Field Service Engineer, and Service Engineer, and, as relevant to the Warranty 19 Manual, has been a Manager in Ford’s Customer Relationship Center since 2012. (Doss 20 Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 124-1.) Doss states that because of his experience and job duties at 21 Ford, he is “familiar with various types of documents that Ford generates in its normal 22 course of business, including warranty manuals and why such documents and information 23 are considered by Ford to be confidential,” as well as “the steps Ford takes to maintain 24 their confidentiality or restrict public disclosure of this information.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Doss 25 describes each document that Ford seeks to maintain under seal as follows: 26 • “FORD-HASTINGS001765 outlines for Ford’s dealers the sequence in which 27 to apply various coverages in the event that multiple coverages apply, as well 28 as the various applicable deductibles” (id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID HASTINGS, Case No. 19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD
12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 13 v. RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
15 Defendant. (ECF No. 124)
16 17 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed two applications to maintain the following documents under seal: 23 attorney Gregory Sogoyan’s declaration and exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff’s Reply 24 brief for his motion to amend (Apps. to Seal, ECF Nos. 106) and attorney Dara Tabesh’s 25 unredacted declaration and related exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the 26 motion for summary judgment (App. to Seal, ECF No. 111). The exhibits requested to be 27 sealed can be grouped into two categories: excerpts from Defendant Ford Motor 28 Company’s 2013 Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual (“Warranty Manual”) (Exs. A–C 1 to Sogoyan Decl., ECF No. 107; Exs. A, C–E to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112) and Ford’s 2 Warranty Detail reports for Plaintiff’s repair visits that took place on or after August 1, 3 2018 (Ex. B to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112). 4 On February 15, 2022, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice 5 Plaintiff’s applications to seal. (Order, ECF No. 120.) The Court found that the compelling 6 reasons standard governed and counsel’s declarations did not satisfy the standard. (Id.) 7 The Court required the parties to meet and confer to narrow the scope of documents to be 8 sealed, in compliance with Section 5.B of the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases 9 (“Standing Order”) and ordered Ford to file a response that establishes the compelling 10 reasons to maintain the applicable documents under seal. (Id. at 5–6; Standing Order 11 § 5.B.) The Court advised that if no response is filed to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court 12 may order that the documents be filed in the public record. 13 Ford filed a response to the Court’s Order, arguing that compelling reasons support 14 maintaining the excerpts from its Warranty Manual under seal because the excerpts 15 constitute confidential business information and trade secrets that cannot be disclosed 16 without damaging Ford’s competitive standing. (Ford’s Resp., ECF No. 124.) 17 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 20 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 21 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 22 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 23 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 24 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 25 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 26 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 27 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 28 1 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 2 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 3 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 4 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 5 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 6 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 7 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 8 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 9 the tangential relevance threshold, the lesser, “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see Pintos 10 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “good cause” 11 standard imposes a lower burden than the “compelling reasons” standard). Under either 12 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 13 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 14 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 15 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 16 Under this Court’s Standing Order, “[a] party seeking a sealing order must provide 17 the Court with: (1) a specific description of particular documents or categories of 18 documents to be protected; and (2) declaration(s) showing a compelling reason or good 19 cause to protect those documents from disclosure.” Hon. Cynthia Bashant’s Standing 20 Order for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) § 5.B. “The standard for filing documents under 21 seal will be strictly applied.” Id. Because “[t]here is a presumptive right of public access 22 to court records based upon common law and first amendment grounds,” “[t]he fact that 23 both sides agree to seal a document or that a stipulated protective order was issued is 24 insufficient cause for sealing.” See id. § 5.A. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 A. Warranty Manual 3 Ford argues that compelling reasons support maintaining under seal the four pages 4 of excerpts from the Warranty Manual because they contain Ford’s confidential business 5 policies and procedures governing warranty claims. Compelling reasons may exist if 6 sealing is required to prevent documents from being used “as sources of business 7 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 8 “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the 9 protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 10 information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 11 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 269(c)(1)(G)); see also Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 12 09cv500–WQH–BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, *2 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (finding 13 compelling reasons to seal because “public disclosure of [the defendant]’s confidential 14 business materials . . . could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to 15 replicate [the defendant]’s business practices and circumvent the considerable time and 16 resources necessary in product and marketing development”). 17 Ford attaches a declaration from Jacob Doss, who has worked as Ford’s Zone 18 Manager, Field Service Engineer, and Service Engineer, and, as relevant to the Warranty 19 Manual, has been a Manager in Ford’s Customer Relationship Center since 2012. (Doss 20 Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 124-1.) Doss states that because of his experience and job duties at 21 Ford, he is “familiar with various types of documents that Ford generates in its normal 22 course of business, including warranty manuals and why such documents and information 23 are considered by Ford to be confidential,” as well as “the steps Ford takes to maintain 24 their confidentiality or restrict public disclosure of this information.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Doss 25 describes each document that Ford seeks to maintain under seal as follows: 26 • “FORD-HASTINGS001765 outlines for Ford’s dealers the sequence in which 27 to apply various coverages in the event that multiple coverages apply, as well 28 as the various applicable deductibles” (id. ¶ 8); 1 • “FORD-HASTINGS001877 provides a detailed checklist for its dealers for 2 handling warranty repairs under Ford’s California Emissions Control Systems 3 Defect Warranty” (id. ¶ 9); 4 • FORD-HASTINGS001928 “explains how a dealership should handle Field 5 Service Actions, specifically, recalls and customer satisfaction programs, how 6 to consult Ford’s databases for information regarding applicable Field Service 7 Actions, and the process dealerships should follow in the event of a recall” 8 (id. ¶ 10); and 9 • FORD-HASTINGS001880 “sets out guidelines clarifying and defining 10 coverage information for Ford’s emissions control systems components” (id. 11 ¶ 11). 12 According to Doss, Ford has developed these policies and procedures over many years 13 through investing time and resources and has maintained the confidentiality of the 14 documents. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) It is Doss’s belief that if the documents are made public, Ford’s 15 competitors would be able to “replicate Ford’s warranty policies and procedures, which are 16 an essential component of Ford’s business relations with its dealers, with minimal effort 17 and expenditure.” (Id. ¶ 13.) For this reason, Doss states that maintaining the documents 18 under seal in this action would preserve Ford’s competitive standing and institutional 19 knowledge. (Id.) 20 The Court finds that Ford has established compelling reasons to maintain under seal 21 the following excerpts from its Warranty Manual: FORD-HASTINGS001765, FORD- 22 HASTINGS001877, FORD-HASTINGS001928, and FORD-HASTINGS001880. 23 24 B. Warranty Detail Reports 25 Ford’s response does not address any reasons to maintain under seal the copies of 26 Ford’s Warranty Detail Reports attached as Exhibit B to the Tabesh Declaration. Because 27 no response has been filed as to that exhibit, the Court orders Plaintiff to file the exhibit in 28 the public record. 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to accept and MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL 3 || the lodged documents (ECF Nos. 107, 112). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file on the 4 || public record Exhibit B to the Tabesh Declaration (ECF No. 112 at 9-44) on or before 5 March 7, 2022. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 A , 8 || DATED: March 1, 2022 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _f.