1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 10 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 128 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to seal documents related 14 to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Dkt. No. 128. For the reasons detailed below, the 15 Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 9 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 10 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 11 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 12 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 13 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Because the motion to seal relates to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is 16 more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, the Court will apply the 17 “compelling reasons” standard. 18 The current motion seeks to seal portions of documents that relate to Defendant’s leased 19 vehicle sales tax practices, the precise issue at the heart of this case. Defendant argues that the 20 excerpts contain “confidential and proprietary GEICO information concerning its internal 21 methodology, processes and procedures for calculating leased vehicle sales tax payments 22 including, but not limited to, the proprietary tools GEICO developed to calculate such payments.” 23 Dkt. No. 128 at 3. Defendant further argues that public release of this information would harm it 24 “because competitors could use this information to implement similar systems to process their 25 claims.” Dkt. No. 128-2 (Gallimore Decl.) at 1. 26 Despite Defendant’s assertions, for the majority of the requested redactions, the Court does 27 not see detailed, proprietary methodologies at risk of being used by competitors to Defendant’s 1 Defendant pays sales tax on leased vehicle total loss claims—the crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations in 2 this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 128-7 (Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set 3 of Interrogatories) at 8. With two limited exceptions, Defendant seeks to seal high-level 4 information that does not warrant sealing to prevent competitors from gaining an advantage, given 5 the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 6 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the district court to seal information “which 7 gives [the defendant] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or 8 use it,” such as the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment 9 terms). The two exceptions are pages 29-32 of the Kochis Declaration, Exhibit F, and the 10 Persinger Declaration, Exhibit S. These pages describe the components of Defendant’s sales tax 11 refund calculator and how the tool works, and could be used by competitors. The Court finds 12 there is compelling reason to seal these pages, but not the rest of the requested redactions. 13 Docket No. Public / Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling 14 (Sealed) be Sealed 15 Dkt. No. 129 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 98 / (Dkt. Defendant’s • Page 5, Lines 7-16 DENIED 16 No. 128-5) Opposition to The general Plaintiffs’ Motion for information about 17 Class Certification Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax 18 practices is critical to 19 the public’s understanding of 20 Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and 21 Defendant has not established a 22 compelling reason 23 that overrides this interest or narrowly 24 tailored the requested redactions. 25 Dkt. No. 98-8 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 8, Lines 23- DENIED 26 No. 128-7) of Kymberly Kochis 26 The general in Support of information about 27 Defendant’s Defendant’s leased Opposition vehicle sales tax the public’s 1 understanding of 2 Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and 3 Defendant has not established a 4 compelling reason that overrides this 5 interest or narrowly 6 tailored the requested redactions. 7 Dkt. No. 98-9 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- GRANTED IN No. 128-9) of Kymberly Kochis 18 PART 8 in Support of • Pages 20-25 The following 9 Defendant’s • Pages 29-32 contains confidential Opposition • Page 36, Lines 1-8 proprietary business 10 information, including details on 11 how a proprietary business tool works. 12 • Pages 29-32 13 Dkt. No. 98-10 / (Dkt. Exhibit G to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED No. 128-11) of Kymberly Kochis 14 The general 14 in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about Defendant’s through Page 11, Defendant’s leased 15 Opposition Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to 16 the public’s 17 understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations 18 and this case, and Defendant has not 19 established a compelling reason 20 that overrides this 21 interest or narrowly tailored the requested 22 redactions. Dkt. No. 91 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Motion for • Page 7, Lines 5-8 DENIED 23 No.
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 MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 10 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 128 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to seal documents related 14 to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Dkt. No. 128. For the reasons detailed below, the 15 Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 9 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 10 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 11 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 12 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 13 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Because the motion to seal relates to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is 16 more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, the Court will apply the 17 “compelling reasons” standard. 18 The current motion seeks to seal portions of documents that relate to Defendant’s leased 19 vehicle sales tax practices, the precise issue at the heart of this case. Defendant argues that the 20 excerpts contain “confidential and proprietary GEICO information concerning its internal 21 methodology, processes and procedures for calculating leased vehicle sales tax payments 22 including, but not limited to, the proprietary tools GEICO developed to calculate such payments.” 23 Dkt. No. 128 at 3. Defendant further argues that public release of this information would harm it 24 “because competitors could use this information to implement similar systems to process their 25 claims.” Dkt. No. 128-2 (Gallimore Decl.) at 1. 26 Despite Defendant’s assertions, for the majority of the requested redactions, the Court does 27 not see detailed, proprietary methodologies at risk of being used by competitors to Defendant’s 1 Defendant pays sales tax on leased vehicle total loss claims—the crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations in 2 this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 128-7 (Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set 3 of Interrogatories) at 8. With two limited exceptions, Defendant seeks to seal high-level 4 information that does not warrant sealing to prevent competitors from gaining an advantage, given 5 the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 6 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the district court to seal information “which 7 gives [the defendant] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or 8 use it,” such as the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment 9 terms). The two exceptions are pages 29-32 of the Kochis Declaration, Exhibit F, and the 10 Persinger Declaration, Exhibit S. These pages describe the components of Defendant’s sales tax 11 refund calculator and how the tool works, and could be used by competitors. The Court finds 12 there is compelling reason to seal these pages, but not the rest of the requested redactions. 13 Docket No. Public / Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling 14 (Sealed) be Sealed 15 Dkt. No. 129 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 98 / (Dkt. Defendant’s • Page 5, Lines 7-16 DENIED 16 No. 128-5) Opposition to The general Plaintiffs’ Motion for information about 17 Class Certification Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax 18 practices is critical to 19 the public’s understanding of 20 Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and 21 Defendant has not established a 22 compelling reason 23 that overrides this interest or narrowly 24 tailored the requested redactions. 25 Dkt. No. 98-8 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 8, Lines 23- DENIED 26 No. 128-7) of Kymberly Kochis 26 The general in Support of information about 27 Defendant’s Defendant’s leased Opposition vehicle sales tax the public’s 1 understanding of 2 Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and 3 Defendant has not established a 4 compelling reason that overrides this 5 interest or narrowly 6 tailored the requested redactions. 7 Dkt. No. 98-9 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- GRANTED IN No. 128-9) of Kymberly Kochis 18 PART 8 in Support of • Pages 20-25 The following 9 Defendant’s • Pages 29-32 contains confidential Opposition • Page 36, Lines 1-8 proprietary business 10 information, including details on 11 how a proprietary business tool works. 12 • Pages 29-32 13 Dkt. No. 98-10 / (Dkt. Exhibit G to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED No. 128-11) of Kymberly Kochis 14 The general 14 in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about Defendant’s through Page 11, Defendant’s leased 15 Opposition Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to 16 the public’s 17 understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations 18 and this case, and Defendant has not 19 established a compelling reason 20 that overrides this 21 interest or narrowly tailored the requested 22 redactions. Dkt. No. 91 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Motion for • Page 7, Lines 5-8 DENIED 23 No. 128-13) Class Certification The general information about 24 Defendant’s leased 25 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to 26 the public’s understanding of 27 Plaintiffs’ allegations Defendant has not 1 established a 2 compelling reason that overrides this 3 interest or narrowly tailored the requested 4 redactions. Dkt. No. 91-1 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- DENIED 5 No. 128-15) of Annick Persinger 18 The general 6 in Support of information about Plaintiffs’ Motion for Defendant’s leased 7 Class Certification vehicle sales tax practices is critical to 8 the public’s understanding of 9 Plaintiffs’ allegations 10 and this case, and Defendant has not 11 established a compelling reason 12 that overrides this interest or narrowly 13 tailored the requested 14 redactions. Dkt. No. 91-1 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED 15 No. 128-17) of Annick Persinger 14 The general in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about 16 Plaintiffs’ Motion for through Page 11, Defendant’s leased 17 Class Certification Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to 18 the public’s understanding of 19 Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and 20 Defendant has not 21 established a compelling reason 22 that overrides this interest or narrowly 23 tailored the requested redactions. 24 Dkt. No. 121 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Updated • Page 10, Lines 23- DENIED 25 No. 128-19) Corrected Reply in 26 (portions of The general Support of Plaintiffs’ footnote 5) information about 26 Motion for Class • Page 12, Lines 23- Defendant’s leased Certification 24 (portions of vehicle sales tax 27 footnote 6) practices is critical to 1 understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations 2 and this case, and Defendant has not 3 established a compelling reason 4 that overrides this 5 interest or narrowly tailored the requested 6 redactions. Dkt. No. 102-1 /(Dkt. | Exhibit S to the e Pages 21-25 GRANTED IN 7 No. 128-21) Supplemental Decl. of | * Pages 29-32 PART Annick Persinger in The following 8 Support of Plaintiffs’ contains confidential 9 Motion for Class proprietary business Certification information, 10 including details on how a proprietary 11 business tool works. e Pages 29-32 a (12 13. || Hl. CONCLUSION 4 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motion to file S 5 under seal, Dkt. No. 128. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file revised public versions of all
6 documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, in whole or in part, within seven days
of this order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the
8 administrative motions are granted will remain under seal.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/31/2022
71 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28